Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Second defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit granting the plaintiff decree for recovery of `25,000/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit. The second defendant appealed before the learned single Judge. The other defendants did not join the appeal, though they filed a joint written statement in defence to the suit. The learned single Judge found that the second defendant in his capacity as the Managing Partner of the first defendant firm issued a cheque for an amount of `25,000/- and that was dishonoured on presentation. On the dishonour of cheque, the suit was instituted. The resistance levied to the suit and the examination of DW2 on the so called winding up of the firm did not inspire confidence in the mind of the trial court or the learned single Judge. The plea of discharge was turned down. The joint and AFA19/02 -2- several liability was fastened after overruling the defence attempted to be set up that no individual decree could have been granted. Assimilating the findings of facts and appreciating the quality of evidence vis-a-vis the nature of legal evidence on record, we are inclined to take the view that the trial court as well as the learned single Judge had come to just and reasonable conclusion on facts. There is no ground for us to interfere with those decisions through this intra-court appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE) jg-23/8