H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs revision from the judgment and decree dated 30th june, 1994, passed by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, bangalore in SCC Suit No. 4951 of 1991 which plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest due up-to-date, that is in total for a sum of Rs. 7,000/ -. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS case was that on 26-5-1990, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,400/- by executing the pronote exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. That in spite of repeated demands and requests and legal notice dated 14-1-1991 and 18-4-1991, which were served on the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff has also alleged, by way of amendment, that on the same day 26-5-1990 defendant had also borrowed anather sum of Rs. 5,000/- and executed another pronote and receipt. The defendant in the original written statement asserted that he had paid Rs. 2,400/- that is Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and rs. 400/- by cash, in relation to that transaction. Defendant admitted that he had taken loan of Rs. 5,400/- and stated in the written statement that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by cheque bearing No. 351506, drawn on the State Bank of India and paid a sum of Rs. 400/- in cash. That is a total sum of Rs. 2,400/- had been paid off and hence he is due in a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. The sum of Rs. 3,000/- which according to the defendant was admittedly due, has been paid in the Court. In the amended paragraph 2-A, which has been added in the plaint, it has been averred that on 26-5-1990, the defendant had borrowed another sum of rs. 5,000/- as loan and executed a demand pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that he has discharged the sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest by paying of Rs. 3,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and Rs. 400/- by cash. He had alleged that suit pronote amount had been paid off and the plaintiff had returned that pronote to the defendant and produced the photostat copy thereof and defendant denied it. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court framed the following issues:1. 3,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and Rs. 400/- by cash. He had alleged that suit pronote amount had been paid off and the plaintiff had returned that pronote to the defendant and produced the photostat copy thereof and defendant denied it. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court framed the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 2,400/-?2. Whether the defendant proves that he has paid the entire amount in respect of Exh. P. 1 and he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff?3. What decree or order? ( 4 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, learned Trial Judge opined that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove that any sum was due on the defendant and payable to the plaintiff. It held that the plaintiff failed to prove that any amount was due on the defendant. Having recorded these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Court below, the plaintiff has come up before this Court in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act. ( 6 ) I have heard Sri S. J. Sanghvi, learned Counsel for the revisionist- applicant. Learned Counsel contended that the learned Court below did not act according to law when it placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that a sum of Rs. 2,400/- was due on the defendant. Learned Counsel contended that when plaintiffs case to the extent that the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 5,400/- as loan to the defendant on 26-5-1990, and the defendant executed a pronote and the receipt, has been admitted by defendant; the burden was really on the defendant to have proved that defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,400/- as alleged by the defendant in the written statement towards the transaction in question. Learned Counsel further contended that in the case under amendment it has very clearly been stated that there was another transaction of Rs. 5,000/- separately as per payment note whereunder a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also given to the defendant and according to the defendant's case that the sum was paid and adjusted towards that second transaction. Learned Counsel further contended that in the case under amendment it has very clearly been stated that there was another transaction of Rs. 5,000/- separately as per payment note whereunder a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also given to the defendant and according to the defendant's case that the sum was paid and adjusted towards that second transaction. Learned Counsel contended that in the additional written statement, defendant has denied the second transaction of loan on the basis of demand promissory note. Learned Counsel contended that own admission of the defendant himself proves that there were two transactions of loan namely: one involved in the suit by way of Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 and the other of Rs. 5,000/- promissory note, the photostat copy of which pronote is Exh. P. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist applicant submitted that defendant has nowhere stated in the evidence that while paying of that amount of Rs. 2,400/- he had not indicated in any manner that this amount was being paid towards the transaction of loan exhibited by Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2. Defendant has only stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and Rs. 400/- by cash with reference to the loan transaction involved in the suit. But he has nowhere stated that while paying of this amount he had indicated in any manner that the amount was being paid and had to be adjusted towards discharge of this particular debt. Really, defendant has concealed the second transaction of loan, and denied second transaction of loan for Rs. 5,000/- held on 26-5-1990, which the defendant at later stage, no doubt admitted, and there were admittedly two separate transactions of loan i. e. , transaction involved in suit for sum of Rs. 5,400/- and the other of same date for Rs. 5,000/ -. While paying the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 400/- he should have indicated to which of the transaction of loans, the money so paid was to be adjusted. The learned Counsel contended when this was the position that the debtor has omitted to intimate and indicate that the payment that he has made is to be adjusted towards discharge of particular loan transaction, the creditor has been free to adjust the same towards the transaction of loan for Rs. 5,000/-, the copy of the pronote which has been filed as Ex. 5,000/-, the copy of the pronote which has been filed as Ex. P. 7. Learned Counsel contended that the Court below did not act according to law in not considering this aspect of the matter and by wrongly placing burden on the plaintiff. He further contended that the Court did not apply its mind to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Contract Act, as such, the decision is not according to law. ( 7 ) NOBODY has appeared to contest, though the respondent has been served. ( 8 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist-appellant. ( 9 ) THERE appears some substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. The decision, which has been arrived, without duly applying mind to the pleadings of the parties and without duly applying mind to the eoidence and the relevant law, can be said to be not in accordance with law and particularly when such an error has the effect of resulting in injustice to a party by wrong decision. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 5,400/- had been advanced by the plaintiff, on pronote Ex. P. 1 and the receipt Ex. P. 2. The defendant's case has been that he has paid Rs. 2,000/- by cheque and Rs. 400/- by cash. It is not the case of the defendant that he at the time of making payment intimated his intention to pay that amount towards this particular transaction in suit, particularly when there has been two transactions of loan. The second transaction of loan of the same date for Rs. 5,000/- as mentioned earlier has been denied, in the written statement and it has been alleged that there has been no second transaction of loan for Rs. 5,000/ -. The depositions and the written statement per se reveals the falsity of the defence case. It is stated at no point of time, the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as alleged. Further this defendant has not executed on demand pronote dated 26-5-1990, nor has discharged the sum of Rs. 5,400/ -. The defendant's pronote was for Rs. 5,000/ -. Plaintiffs case is that the defendant has discharged that pronote by paying the amount and that pronote was returned to the defendant. 5,000/- as alleged. Further this defendant has not executed on demand pronote dated 26-5-1990, nor has discharged the sum of Rs. 5,400/ -. The defendant's pronote was for Rs. 5,000/ -. Plaintiffs case is that the defendant has discharged that pronote by paying the amount and that pronote was returned to the defendant. The defence case as per written statement was that defendant has further averred that except the suit transaction, this defendant has not contracted for any other transaction on 26-5-1990, nor did execute any demand pronote for said sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 10 ) BUT when I look to the statement of defendant him self, no doubt, in the course of cross-examination the deposition made by him falsifies his earlier stand and case. No doubt, earlier in examination-in-chief he had stated I have no other loan transaction with the plaintiff. Even his statement recorded on 14-6-1994, he states "i know the plaintiff. I had taken loan from the plaintiff twice, once Rs. 5,000/- and second time Rs. 5,400/ -. I paid Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff and plaintiff himself torn the pronote in my presence. I had paid Rs. 400/- in cash to plaintiff and Rs. 2,000/- in cheque, which has been encashed by the plaintiff'. The defendant denies the second transaction in the pleadings, he denied the second transaction of loan of Rs. 5,000/- in examination-in-chief which was recorded on 21-9-1992. But in cross-examination he was caught and had to admit that there was second transaction of loan for Rs. 5,000/ -. Defendant in examination-in-chief which was recorded on 14-6-1994, admits that after full payment of that amount pronote was torn in his presence. This statement indicates the falsity of the statement and indicates and shows that he has taken a false stand, later on he had to change his stand. Plaintiffs case is Rs. 2,400/- which was paid was adjusted towards the transaction covered by Exh. P. 7. Defendant has nowhere stated that he has paid Rs. 2,400/- and intimated it to the plaintiff, that the amount was being paid towards the transaction of loan involved in the present, that is subject-matter of pronote and receipt Exhs. P. 1 and p. 2. Really, defendant's stand was when there was no transaction, there was no question of any payment. Defendant has nowhere stated that he has paid Rs. 2,400/- and intimated it to the plaintiff, that the amount was being paid towards the transaction of loan involved in the present, that is subject-matter of pronote and receipt Exhs. P. 1 and p. 2. Really, defendant's stand was when there was no transaction, there was no question of any payment. This per se reveals falsity of the stand taken by the defendant, which clearly proves that Rs. 2,400/- no doubt had been paid by the defendant, as admitted by the plaintiff also, but without indicating towards which of the two transactions this sum was being paid. The duty and burden was cast on the defendant to prove that he had indicated and pointed out that this sum of Rs. 2,400/- was being paid towards the transaction in suit covered by Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2. When he had not so indicated and he had failed to intimate, then under section 60 of the Contract Act, it was open to the plaintiff to adjust it and to adjust it to either of the transactions, irrespective of whether its recovery by suit was barred by limitation. Section 59 only puts an obligation that when the debtor owes more than one distinct debt, and makes payment with the express intention or in circumstances implying that the payment is to be applied to discharge from particular debt, then it has to be applied to that debt. When he omits to do so, i. e. , to indicate such an intention as to how the money paid is to be applied, it was open to the creditor-plaintiff to have adjusted that amount towards that transaction of loan covered by Exh. P. 7. ( 11 ) THAT loan of Rs. 5,000/- has been discharged no doubt. Admittedly, the pronote has been torn. It appears the defendant tried to take the benefit of this tearing of the old pronote. He has not indicated when he has paid that amount of Rs. 5,000/- and in what manner. When the burden was on him to indicate and when he has failed to indicate, definitely when the creditor applied that amount towards the transaction covered by Exh. P. 7 and torn out pronote and admitted that whole transaction has been specified, then Court below erred in law in holding that no amount was payable by the defendant. Rs. When the burden was on him to indicate and when he has failed to indicate, definitely when the creditor applied that amount towards the transaction covered by Exh. P. 7 and torn out pronote and admitted that whole transaction has been specified, then Court below erred in law in holding that no amount was payable by the defendant. Rs. 2,400/- as such has wrongly been taken towards this transaction. No doubt after the filing of the suit defendant paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with respect to this transaction. The defendant as such, in my opinion, as the amount of Rs. 2,400/- remains unpaid, has been liable to pay and the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. The decision of the Trial Court as it has been arrived at, holding that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff, in my opinion has proceeded on an erroneous view of law in particular and the Court below failed to take into consideration the circumstances emerging from the evidence of the defendant that what a big liar he was. Thus considered in my opinion, the decision of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the plaintiffs suit deserves to be decreed for the sum of Rs. 2,400/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of suit till filing and at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the suit till its realisation. The suit is decreed with costs of the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. But costs of the revision are made easy, as nobody has put in appearance. --- *** --- .