forms. Courts below have failed to appreciate that in the circumstances, respondent ought to have been required to prove his debt and failure of respondent, who admittedly is a financier, to do so ought to have been put against him. Notice caused by petitioner dated 16.04.2001 has been marked as Ex.D1. Therein, dispute between parties over loan obtained by petitioner, mortgages effected towards securing the same as also non-compliance with terms of agreement for sale entered into by petitioner with respondent has been spoken of. Most importantly, petitioner has alleged that respondent held 14 signed cheques of his. Respondent, in cross-examination, has sought to gloss over the receipt of such notice by contending that he was not sure if the acknowledgment card bearing his signature dated 18.04.2001 was in acknowledgment of his receipt of Ex.D1, notice, dated 16.04.2001. Courts below have failed to see that in such circumstances, there hardly was likelihood of petitioner issuing a cheque on 01.05.2001 in favour of respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, it would be appropriate to allow this revision leaving it open to parties to agitate their rights before civil forum.
