JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 19.6.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.4 of 2008, affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in case No.106-I of 2005, whereby suit having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') for recovery of Rs. 58,266.00/-,came to be decreed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff, which is a firm duly registered under Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 filed suit for recovery in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., averring therein that appellant-defendant(hereinafter 'defendant'), who is a registered Government Contractor had been purchasing food grains and other articles from the plaintiff's shop. As per plaintiff, total outstanding amount against the defendant was Rs.41,994.00 and defendant with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of plaintiff firm. However, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque drawn on State Co-operative Bank, Kumarsain was dishonoured vide memo dated 28.10.2004. Since despite repeated requests, defendant failed to make the payment, plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery. By way of suit plaintiff prayed that his suit may be decreed for Rs. 58,266.00/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 3. By way of written statement, defendant while admitting that he is contractor and had been purchasing food articles from the shop of the plaintiff, categorically stated in his written statement that he had some dispute with the plaintiff over the amount to be paid by him to the plaintiff, but ultimately matter was settled for Rs. 50,000/- and he had issued cheque. Defendant claimed that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in cash in July, 2004, but he did not issue any receipt. He further stated that though plaintiff had agreed to return the cheque, but he never returned the same. 4. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Court below framed following issues:- 1. 50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in cash in July, 2004, but he did not issue any receipt. He further stated that though plaintiff had agreed to return the cheque, but he never returned the same. 4. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Court below framed following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash to the plaintiff in the month of July, 2004 in presence of witnesses, as alleged? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.58,266/- alongwith interest as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is false and frivolous?. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief:- 5. Subsequently, vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007 learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit till actual realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, appellant-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., however fact remains that same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.6.2008. In the aforesaid backdrop, defendant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 7. This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides admission of appeal on substantial questions of law only. This appeal, though was admitted on 17.9.2009, but on which question, it was admitted, has not been reflected. Considering the contention of parties, following substantial question of law is framed :- "1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 8. Considering the contention of parties, following substantial question of law is framed :- "1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties. Though, during the proceedings of the case learned counsel representing the defendant made this Court to peruse evidence led on record by the respective parties, but he was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below and as such, this Court finds it difficult to re-appraise /re-appreciate the evidence, especially in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Courts below. 9. Plaintiff with a view to substantiate his aforesaid claim examined himself as PW-1 and deposed that defendant, who is a Government Contractor, approached them for the purchase of food grains. He further stated that defendant was making the purchase on credit basis and the accounts were to be settled on 1.4.2003. It has specifically come in the statement of this witness that defendant had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, but when said cheque was presented in the bank, same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. It has also come in the statement of this witness that legal notice was issued, but despite that defendant failed to make the payment to the plaintiff. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness reveals that plaintiff stuck to his statement recorded in his examination-in-chief. He stated that cheque was given in the presence of Nand Lal Bali. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that entire amount stands paid in cash. 10. Pw-2, Nand Ram deposed that plaintiff had been purchasing food grains articles from the shop of the plaintiff and in the month of April, 2003 had handed over a cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to him. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that entire amount stands paid in cash. 10. Pw-2, Nand Ram deposed that plaintiff had been purchasing food grains articles from the shop of the plaintiff and in the month of April, 2003 had handed over a cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to him. In cross-examination, this witness though denied the suggestion put to him that no cheque was handed over to the plaintiff in his presence, but admitted that cheque was not filled before him. 11. Defendant while deposing as DW-1 stated that amount was settled at Rs.50,000/-, but he could not make the payment as he was not getting the payment from the HP, PWD Department. He further stated that he had handed over cash of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff in July, 2004 in the presence of Saiyan Ram and Puran Dass. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was purchasing the food grains articles from the shop of the plaintiff and their accounts were settled in the year, 2004. He also admitted that he did not ask for any receipt. 12. Dw-2, Saiyan Ram deposed that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. In his cross-examination, he stated that defendant called him from place Oddi through land-line call. He also stated that money was handed over to Chiranji Lal and there were 2-3 persons present at the spot. 13. Dw-3, Puran Chand deposed that defendant handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and the accounts were finalized. In his cross-examination, he stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to one man aged 40 45 years. 14. If the aforesaid oral statements having been made by the defendants witnesses are read juxtaposing each other, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements. DW-1 stated that he handed over cash to plaintiff Vijay Kumar, whereas DW-2, Saiyan Ram stated that money was handed over to Chiranji Lal. DW-3, Puran Dass failed to state the name of the person, to whom sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in his presence, rather he stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to one man aged 40-45 years. 15. Plaintiff has placed on record cheque dated 23.4.2004 issued by the defendant amounting to Rs.50,000/-. DW-3, Puran Dass failed to state the name of the person, to whom sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in his presence, rather he stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to one man aged 40-45 years. 15. Plaintiff has placed on record cheque dated 23.4.2004 issued by the defendant amounting to Rs.50,000/-. Ex.PW1/C is the registered letter, mark-Y is the acknowledgment, whereas there is no documentary evidence, if any, ever came to be led on record on behalf of the defendant. Receipt of legal notice is not in dispute, rather factum with regard to issuance of legal notice stands duly admitted. Submissions made by the learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant that since plaintiff had specific remedy of filing the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Court below ought not have entertained the suit deserves out right rejection because there is no bar for a person to file civil suit for recovery of amount paid to him through cheque. Though, in the case at hand, defendant made an attempt to raise a defence that since sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash, he is not liable to pay any money on account of cheque admittedly issued by him in favour of the plaintiff, but as has been taken note hereinabove, no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record on behalf of the defendant in support of his claim that he had paid sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to the plaintiff, whereas there is presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the plaintiff being holder of the cheque. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttal, but no evidence has been led on record to probablise the defence taken by the defendant. 16. Having perused the material available on record, this Court is fully satisfied and convinced that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , wherein it has been held as under: "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , wherein it has been held as under: "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." (p.269) 18. Aforesaid exposition of law clearly suggests that High Court, while excising power under Section 100 CPC, cannot upset concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse. But, in the case at hand, this Court while examining the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made by the parties, has carefully perused evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly suggests that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no perversity, as such, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Moreover, learned representing the appellant-defendant was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and as such, same do not call for any interference. 19. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence, be it ocular or documentary on the record and, as such, present appeal fails and same is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.