required to be maintained by the Company. The said statutory forms were also produced, and marked as Exs.A.15 to A.18. Apart from that, the negotiable instrument, mainly the pronote executed by defendant No.1, was marked as Ex.A.5 apart from the agreement of chit, agreement of guarantee etc. The transactions covered by the suit are, therefore, in the usual course of business of the Company which are presumed to be conducted in that manner and such a responsible officer of the Company, who gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff – Company, cannot be found fault with and the suit cannot be dismissed only on such ground. There are several other aspects on merits which may also point out the errors committed by the Court below. But, however, since this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remit the matter for fresh consideration, in order to protect either of the parties from any prejudice on account of any observations made by this Court on merits, no further observations on merits are warranted. The effect of statutory presumption arising, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in favour of the plaintiff, including whether a statutory presumption is available in favour of the appellant – plaintiff is also not considered. In view of that, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant, and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. Since it is neither desirable nor appropriate to give a finding or make any observations on merits in view of the order of remand proposed, point No.2 is not considered. The parties are relegated to the Trial Court with liberty to both sides to lead such further evidence as they deem fit and proper and, thereafter, the Trial Court shall consider the entire evidence on record, and dispose of the suit, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
