ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--In this revision petition the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff, is challenged by the Defendant. 2. The Respondent herein was the Plaintiff and Petitioner was the Defendant before the trial Court. The Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- to the Defendant being 25% advance for supply of a specific fabric. The fabric arranged by the Defendant was found to have been damaged. The Plaintiff rejected the material and demanded refund of advance amount paid. The cheque issued by the Defendant was bounced. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of the same. The Defendant resisted the suit. The plea of the Defendant was that Plaintiff placed the order with a firm known as M/s. Manak Traders, which is said to be the sister concern of the Defendant, and the said firm delivered the material but cheque was given to the Defendant-firm. It is the further case of the Defendant that when the Plaintiff was asked to give the cheque in favour of its sister concern which delivered the goods, Plaintiff promised to pay the full value of the goods and thereafter to encash the cheque issued by the Defendant. After trial, the trial Court disbelieved the plea of Defendant and decreed the suit. 3. The issuance of cheque by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for a sum of Rs.21,000/- is not in dispute. So also, the bouncing of cheque issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is not in dispute. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. 4. The version put forward by the Defendant that the goods had been delivered by its sister concern etc., cannot be believed. The Defendant has not impleaded the so-called sister concern to bring out the truth. Except the say of the Defendant, the said sister concern is not at all in picture. No document is produced by the Defendant to prove its stand. If really the said firm had supplied materials to the Plaintiffs, it will recover the price of the materials from the Plaintiff independently. The Defendant cannot take shelter from taking such a plea. Rightly the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the amount due towards the cheque. Therefore, it is not a case for interference. 5. If really the said firm had supplied materials to the Plaintiffs, it will recover the price of the materials from the Plaintiff independently. The Defendant cannot take shelter from taking such a plea. Rightly the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the amount due towards the cheque. Therefore, it is not a case for interference. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The Respondent is free to withdraw the amount deposited by the Petitioner pursuant to the interim order.