Cheque presumption and remand limits upheld: execution proved, rebuttal failed, and no retrial to fill evidentiary gaps.

In a cheque-based money suit, proof of the loan transaction and execution of the cheque triggered statutory presumptions in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to rebut those presumptions with credible evidence, as the plaintiff's version remained intact in cross-examination and the defendant did not testify. The decree founded on the cheque was therefore sustained. The court also held that remand for additional evidence is not available merely to fill gaps in a party's case, and no sufficient ground existed for a retrial because the record already contained adequate material for decision. The request for remand was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proved the transaction and execution of the cheque so as to sustain the money decree; (ii) Whether the appellate court should remand the matter for additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff proved the transaction and execution of the cheque so as to sustain the money decree.

Analysis: The plaintiff's evidence regarding the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque remained unshaken in cross-examination. The defendant did not enter the witness box, and the documentary materials relied on by the defendant did not displace the plaintiff's version. Once execution of the cheque was proved, the statutory presumptions operated in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant failed to rebut them by acceptable evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the decree based on the cheque was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court should remand the matter for additional evidence.

Analysis: Remand is warranted only within the recognised limits of appellate power and not merely to enable a party to fill gaps in evidence. The record already contained sufficient material for adjudication, and the defendant had been afforded opportunity to contest the claim. No compelling ground existed for a retrial or for a remand to cure evidentiary deficiencies.

Conclusion: The request for remand was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The trial court's decree was sustained, and the appeal failed on merits without any basis for remand.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque-based money suit, once the plaintiff proves the transaction and execution of the instrument, statutory presumptions arise in the plaintiff's favour and can be displaced only by credible rebuttal evidence; remand cannot be ordered merely to permit a party to fill lacunae in its case.

---