In this regular second appeal arising from a suit for recovery of money, the appellant failed to raise any question of law or bring any issue to the notice of the court. The appeal was dismissed on the face of the record without costs as no question of law was brought to the notice of this court.
Appeal dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RSA.No. 1031 of 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08-04-2005 IN AS 16/2002 of I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08-08-2000 IN OS 1709/2000 of III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
RAEENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ARANGOTTUKARA KANNATHU KRISHNAN NAIR, M.G.ROAD OVERBRIDGE, TRICHUR VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.M.SATHEESH SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
SAMUEL THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS, HOUSE NO.21, TRICHUR CORPORATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O., TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No. 1031 of 2005 2
JUDGMENT
A suit for recovery of money based on
original transaction dismissed by the Trial Court (III Addl, Munsiff's Court, Thrissur) in O.S.No.1709/2000, but it was decreed by the First Appellate Court (I Addl.District Court, Thrissur) in A.S.No.16/2002, against which this appeal is preferred.
borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- and later on in discharge of the said amount a cheque was issued.
But, on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured. Hence, the suit.
dishonour are not in dispute. On the otherhand,
it is submitted by the defendant that he had
issued a cheque. It is also admitted that the cheque was dishonored. So, this would show the original transaction and issuance of cheque in discharge of Rs.20,000/-. Nothing was brought to
RSA.No. 1031 of 2005 3
the notice of this Court in order to have an interference by this second appeal. No question of law much less any question of law brought to the notice of this court. Hence, the appeal fails.
The appeal is dismissed but without cost.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
RAEENDRAN
SAMUEL THOMAS
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
