JUDGMENT : G.RADHA RANI, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed in O.S No.163 of 2000 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff was a finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Managing Director Mr. G. Mahesh. The contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendant were longtime friends and had longstanding association. The defendant had also deposited amounts with the plaintiff company. One day, the defendant brought his friend by name Mr. B.Kutumba Rao and introduced him and stated that the said Kutumba Rao was in need of money for his business requirement and requested the plaintiff to advance a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and offered to stand as a guarantor. Mr. Kutumba Rao submitted loan application on 05.11.1995 and executed a promissory note on the same date for which the defendant signed as a guarantor. After executing the said documents, the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing No.130624 dated 05.11.1995 in favour of Mr. B. Kutumba Rao drawn on Allahabad Bank, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad. The plaintiff came to know that the cheque issued by the plaintiff was encashed at Vijayawada. As per the terms of the loan, the loan was repayable together with interest at 24% per annum within two years from the date of execution of promissory note. Mr. Kutumba Rao did not repay the amount with interest even after lapse of two years by 05.11.1997. The plaintiff informed the defendant that Kutumba Rao defaulted in payment of loan and that the shares of Vysya Bank offered by Kutumba Rao as security for repayment of loan were sent to Vysya Bank to realize the amount and that he came to know that the shares were not genuine but spurious. The plaintiff stated that he gave loan in favour of Kutumba Rao on 05.11.1995 only on the basis of representation made by the defendant that Mr. Kutumba Rao was his friend. The plaintiff got enquiries made at Vijayawada and came to know that Mr. Kutumba Rao was not residing in the address given in the application. The plaintiff stated that he gave loan in favour of Kutumba Rao on 05.11.1995 only on the basis of representation made by the defendant that Mr. Kutumba Rao was his friend. The plaintiff got enquiries made at Vijayawada and came to know that Mr. Kutumba Rao was not residing in the address given in the application. The plaintiff made number of attempts to trace Mr. Kutumba Rao, but in vain. Mr. Kutumba Rao either was absconding or was a fictitious person. The plaintiff requested the defendant several times to repay Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest since he was co-guarantor. Instead of repaying the amounts to the plaintiff, the defendant started blackmailing the plaintiff company. The defendant sent false complaints against the plaintiff company to the authorities like Reserve Bank of India, Company Law Board etc., that the plaintiff was withholding the fixed deposits of defendant and his relatives illegally. The plaintiff was having deposits of the defendant worth Rs.3,00,000/- incidentally equivalent to the loan taken by Mr. Kutumba Rao. The defendant kept the said deposit by way of security and the defendant was now using pressure tactics to repay the deposit amount, because of the demand made by the plaintiff to defendant to repay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- loan issued to Mr. Kutumba Rao. The defendant or his relatives did not approach the plaintiff for payment of amount under deposit on maturity. The deposits matured long back. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the loan amount at least out of the deposit amount. But, instead of repaying the loan, the defendant insisted on payment of the deposit amount together with interest even though he was aware that interest would not accrue on deposits after maturity. The defendant was liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- principal amount together with interest as per the loan terms. As such, the plaintiff got a legal notice issued on 17.11.1999 demanding the defendant repayment of loan of Rs.5,88,000/- as on the date of issue of notice with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff received reply notice from defendant on 19.12.1999 making false allegations, as such, filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. 5. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. He contended that the demand draft was not issued in favour of Mr. The plaintiff received reply notice from defendant on 19.12.1999 making false allegations, as such, filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. 5. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. He contended that the demand draft was not issued in favour of Mr. Kutumba Rao, but was issued in favour of M/s.Jaya Machinery, payable at Vijayawada. The defendant had no connection whatsoever with M/s.Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada. The defendant, after coming to know about filing of the suit, approached the plaintiff and entered into a settlement agreement on 06.12.2000 wherein the plaintiff agreed to insert the name of the original borrower Mr. Kutumba Rao. The settlement agreement was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. The same was also notarized. The suit was barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of the principal borrower and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows: 1) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? 4) To what relief? 7. The Managing Director of the plaintiff company was examined as PW.1. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as DW.1. Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 8. The learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 23.10.2002, the defendant preferred this appeal. 10. Notices were issued to the respondent and the respondent made his appearance through his counsel Sri S. Surya Prakash Rao. As the learned counsel Sri S. Surya Prakash Rao expired during the pendency of the appeal, notices were once again sent to the respondent, but the same were returned as unclaimed. 11. Heard Sri N. Chandadhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 12. As the learned counsel Sri S. Surya Prakash Rao expired during the pendency of the appeal, notices were once again sent to the respondent, but the same were returned as unclaimed. 11. Heard Sri N. Chandadhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the appellant-defendant amongst various defences mainly took the defence that the loan was not paid to the principal borrower, but was paid to M/s.Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada and therefore, he was not liable for the suit claim. However, the defendant failed to substantiate the said plea due to which the trial court decreed the suit negativing the contention of the defendant that the consideration was not received by the principal borrower on the ground that no evidence was placed to that effect before the court. After the suit was decreed, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff had already filed OP No.848 of 1996 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, against Allahabad Bank for deficiency of service on the ground that the bank issued a demand draft in favour of M/s.Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada instead of in the name of its customer Mr.B. Kutumba Rao for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on the cheque issued by the plaintiff on 05.11.1995 and therefore, it could not recover the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the borrower. The said complaint was filed much earlier to the suit in 1996 with a specific plea that the plaintiff-Finance Company had not given loan to Mr. Kutumba Rao. The said OP was allowed on 21.06.2000 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing the Allahabad Bank to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 06.11.1995 till payment. The cheque issued by the Finance Company in the name of Kutumba Rao was also marked as Ex.B1 before the Consumer Forum. In the suit filed on 31.12.1999, the plaintiff never disclosed about the proceedings before the Consumer Forum. The plaintiff took contradictory stands before the Civil Court and Consumer Forum. In the suit, the plaintiff took the stand that the consideration was received by Kutumba Rao and therefore, the defendant/guarantor was liable. At the same time in OP No.848 of 1996 the plaintiff took a plea that consideration was not received by Kutumba Rao, but wrongly paid by Allahabad Bank to M/s. Jaya Machinery. In the suit, the plaintiff took the stand that the consideration was received by Kutumba Rao and therefore, the defendant/guarantor was liable. At the same time in OP No.848 of 1996 the plaintiff took a plea that consideration was not received by Kutumba Rao, but wrongly paid by Allahabad Bank to M/s. Jaya Machinery. In the appeal, amongst all the pleas, the appellant mainly contended that as per the allegations in OP No.848 of 1996, the consideration was not received by the principal borrower and therefore, the defendant being a guarantor was not liable to the said claim, as the contract was without consideration. In the counter to the stay petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the plaintiff categorically admitted for the first time about the order of the Consumer Forum but made a statement that the plaintiff company had no intention of getting double benefit and if the bank would pay the amount of draft, the plaintiff would not press against the defendant to the extent of amount received. The Indian Bank with which the Allahabad Bank merged, issued a letter dated 21.07.2022 stating that the Bank in compliance of the orders of the lower court in OP No.848 of 1996 had paid Rs.10,52,500/- vide banker’s cheque No.23361/157 dated 02.01.2010 in favour of the plaintiff M/s. Greater Hyderabad Benefit Fund Limited towards full and final settlement of the above case. The banker’s cheque was encashed by the beneficiary on 07.01.2010 and as such, prayed to allow the appeal filed by the defendant with costs. 13. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are: 1) Whether the respondent-plaintiff issued the cheque in the name of Mr. B.Kutumba Rao and is entitled for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest and costs from the appellant – defendant as claimed by him? 2) To what result? 14. POINT No.1: The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint was that he advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to Mr. B. Kutumba Rao as per the request of the defendant and as the defendant stood as guarantor to the loan amount, the defendant is liable to pay the said amount. The contention of the defendant was that the cheque was not issued in the name of Mr. B. Kutumba Rao as per the request of the defendant and as the defendant stood as guarantor to the loan amount, the defendant is liable to pay the said amount. The contention of the defendant was that the cheque was not issued in the name of Mr. B.Kutumba Rao but was issued in the name of M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada for which he has no concern and as such, he was not liable to re-pay the same. 15. The Managing Director of the plaintiff-Finance Company was examined as PW.1 and he filed his evidence affidavit stating that he was having longstanding association with the defendant and the defendant also deposited amounts with his company. One day, the defendant brought his friend, by name, Mr. B. Kutumba Rao and introduced him as his close friend and requested to advance a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and offered to stand as a guarantor for which he agreed. At the time of availing the loan, Mr. Kutumba Rao and the defendant executed Exs.A2 to A5. Ex.A2 was the loan application. Ex.A3 was the promissory note in which the defendant signed as a co-guarantor. Ex.A4 was the letter of undertaking and Ex.A5 was the surety bond. All the above documents are dated 05.11.1995. The said documents would disclose that the application for loan was made by Sri B. Kutumba Rao on 05.11.1995 and a promissory note was also executed by him agreeing to repay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum and the defendant undertook to repay the loan amount in case Mr. B. Kutumba Rao failed to repay the same and signed as a co-guarantor. Ex.A5 was the surety form which was also signed by the principal borrower B. Kutumba Rao as well as the defendant as a guarantor. 16. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and he filed his evidence affidavit contending that he was not the original borrower of the money of Rs.3,00,000/-. The original borrower was one Mr. B. Kutumba Rao of Vijayawada. On seeing advertisement for fixed deposits, he kept his money and that of his friends and relatives money with the plaintiff company initially to a tune of Rs.3,44,700/- and the plaintiff failed to pay the maturity value of the deposits. The original borrower was one Mr. B. Kutumba Rao of Vijayawada. On seeing advertisement for fixed deposits, he kept his money and that of his friends and relatives money with the plaintiff company initially to a tune of Rs.3,44,700/- and the plaintiff failed to pay the maturity value of the deposits. He along with 15 other members filed criminal cases which were compromised and the plaintiff paid certain amounts to avoid criminal proceedings in the criminal courts and accordingly, the plaintiff disbursed the amounts to the satisfaction of the members of the plaintiff company including him. The plaintiff entered into a settlement deed dated 12.07.2002. He further contended that the plaintiff extended the loan amount to Mr. B. Kutumba Rao, who executed a demand promissory note on 05.11.1995 and the cheque was given to the said Mr. Kutumba Rao, who encashed the same at Vijayawada. Later, he came to know that the aforesaid cheque was not issued in the name of Mr.B.Kutumba Rao and issued in the name of M/s.Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada. He was not aware as to what prompted the plaintiff to issue the cheque in favour of the aforesaid firm. He further contended that the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement dated 06.12.2000 stating that they would remove his name as defendant and incorporate the name of Mr. B. Kutumba Rao, the original borrower. 17. Thus, the defendant had taken a defence that the loan was paid to M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada, but not in the name of Mr. B. Kutumba Rao. But, no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to show that the cheque was issued in the name of Mr. B. Kutumba Rao but not in the name of M/s.Jaya Machinery. The defendant during the course of hearing of the appeal filed CCCA MP No.8095 of 2003 seeking to receive the certified copy of the order of the District Consumer Forum in OP No.848 of 1996 as additional evidence contending that after decretal of the suit, the defendant came to know about the plaintiff filing OP No.848 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad against Allahabad Bank for deficiency of service on the ground that the bank issued demand draft in the name of M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada instead of its customer Mr. B. Kutumba Rao and as such, it could not recover the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the borrower. B. Kutumba Rao and as such, it could not recover the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the borrower. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the OP was allowed on 21.06.2000 by the Consumer Redressal Forum directing the Allahabad Bank to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 06.11.1995 till payment. The cheque issued by the Finance Company in the name of Kutumba Rao was marked as Ex.B1 before the Consumer Redressal Forum. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also filed a letter dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Branch Manager of the Indian Bank confirming that the bank, in compliance with the orders in OP No.848 of 1996, had paid Rs.10,52,500/- vide banker’s cheque No.23361/157 dated 02.01.2010 in favour of M/s.Greater Hyderabad Benefit Fund Limited (plaintiff herein), towards full and final settlement of the above case. As such, the same would prove the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that OP No.848 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiff against the Allahabad Bank for deficiency of service for issuing the cheque in favour of M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada instead of its customer B. Kutumba Rao and that the said OP was allowed on 21.06.2000 and as per the said order, the Allahabad Bank, which was merged with the Indian Bank, had issued a cheque for Rs.10,52,500/- in favour of the plaintiff M/s. Greater Hyderabad Benefit Fund Limited towards full and final settlement of the claim. 19. Thus, the same would prove that on one hand, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount stating that he advanced loan to Mr.B. Kutumba Rao and on the other hand filed OP before the District Consumer Forum vide OP No.848 of 1996 stating that the cheque was not issued in favour of Mr.B. Kutumba Rao, but in favour of M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada and took contradictory stands. Suppressing the above fact, the plaintiff filed the suit, which amounts to obtaining a decree by playing fraud. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 854 wherein it was held that: 6. Finally, the High Court held as under: "The principle of this decision governs the instant case. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 854 wherein it was held that: 6. Finally, the High Court held as under: "The principle of this decision governs the instant case. At the worst the plaintiff is guilty of fraud in having falsely alleged, at the time when he filed the suit for partition, he had subsisting interest in the property though he had already executed Ex. B-15. Even so, that would not amount to extrinsic fraud because that is a matter which could well have been traversed and established to be false by the appellant by adducing the necessary evidence. The preliminary decree in the partition suit necessarily involves an adjudication though impliedly that the plaintiff has a subsisting interest in the property." 7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and  circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 21. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 21. In the present case also, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the defendant, suppressing the fact of his filing the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum against the bank for issuing cheque in favor of M/s. Jaya Machinery, Vijayawada instead of in the name of its customer Mr. B.Kutumba Rao. Thus being fully aware that the cheque was not issued in the name of its customer Mr. B.Kutumba Rao, proceeding against the guarantor amounts to playing fraud upon the Courts as well as against the appellant – defendant. As admittedly no amount was received by Mr. B.Kutumba Rao, who applied for loan, the defendant who stood as guarantor to him is not liable to pay for the same. As the plaintiff had received compensation from the Bank along with interest for issuing the cheque in the name of some others, other than in the name of Mr. B.Kutumba Rao, he is not entitled to proceed against Mr. B.Kutumba Rao – the principal borrower or against the guarantor – the appellant – defendant herein. For the above reason only, the plaintiff might have kept quiet without contesting the appeal after receiving the notice in this appeal. As such, the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest and costs as claimed by him from the appellant-defendant. 22. In view of the additional evidence adduced by the appellant- defendant in this appeal, showing the payment of amount by the Indian Bank to the plaintiff on 21.07.2022 as per the orders in OP No.848 of 1996, the judgment of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad in O.S. No.163 of 2000 dated 23.10.2002 is liable to be set aside. 23. POINT No.2: In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed in O.S No.163 of 2000 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed