brought out that no money at all had been paid. On the other hand, there was a presumption of the instrument as being fully supported for consideration in terms of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Court found that there was no evidence to displace the recitals contained in the promissory note and the versions of the witnesses. The defendants No.1 and 2 who were examined on the side of the defendant could not have also proved that there was no consideration, for they were themselves not witnesses to the transaction and they were only trying to contend that the suits had been instituted by the plaintiff against them. Their version could not have supported the case of the defendant as regards the aspect of passing of consideration. If the evidence of DW1 and DW2 could not be reckoned for the purpose of establishing whether the plaintiff was professionally a money lender to whom the provisions of the Act would be applicable, the Court reasoned and, in my view correctly, that the defendant who was trying to contend that the plaintiff did not have money to advance could not have brought the evidence that DW1 and DW2 had also been sued upon. If they had been sued upon by the plaintiff that itself showed their enmity against the plaintiff and their own versions could not have been taken without consideration of how they could be aggrieved against any action by the plaintiff and they would be interested in supporting any one who was taking up a plea against the plaintiff. The Court cited case law on the subject under the provisions of the Act that showed that a systematic lending through a course of transactions which would show that the person was engaged in the business of money lending was not available in this case and even if suits were to have been instituted, it could not PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.12.15 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
