Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: 7 C.C.No.1157/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
13. Whatever stated by me in my evidence affidavit is true and
correct and in token thereof I have signed the affidavit.
(B.S.Sankpal)
Date : 15.07.2026 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Mr. Piyush G. Gundana by advocate Vikas
Sharma for accused:
14. It is true to say that besides my oral submission there is no
document which show that I am the karta of the Gundana family. Now
Exh.30 i.e. the bill of exchange is shown to me. This document does not
bear my signature. Now Exh.33 i.e. demand notice and Exh. 44 i.e.
counter reply are shown to me. It is true to say that there are no
counter signatures on both documents which disclosed that I have
given instruction and authority to issue notice and counter reply to the
advocate. It is true to say that my name is not mentioned in the notice
as well as in the counter reply that I have interacted with accused nos.
1 to 3.
15. My father Gowardhandas Gundana passed away in the year
2016. It is true to say that there is no document showing bank
statement and its entry to show that the deceased complainant had
paid amount to accused no.1. It is true to say that there is nothing on
record in writing that the accused came to my father and asked for
money. My late father in the year 2013 interacted with Mr. Pujit
Agrawal. I don’t know the name of any other person to whom my
father was interacted. I am not sure that from year 2013 to 2016 my
father had not instituted any civil suit for recovery of money on the
-- 1 of 3 --
8 C.C.No.1157/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
basis of bill of exchange. I am unable to state the name of a person to
whom I have interacted. I don’t remember the name of staff members
of partnership firm of accused. I did not meet with accused nos. 2 and 3
personally in there office except the court premises.
16. Now Exh.30 bill of exchange is shown to me. It is true to say
that bill of exchange bears the signature of Mr. Pujit Agrawal and
accused no.2. I am unaware about the fact that whether my late father
had issued any notice to the accused after 30 days of execution of bill
of exchange. It is true to say that there is no document in existence
which shows the rate of interest and that the accused were agreed to
pay the interest. It is true to say that I have not disclosed what amount
the accused have paid towards interest. My father is passed away in
January 2016. It is not true to say that Mr. Pujit Agarwal has paid
money to my father during his life time which is now claimed by me as
repayment of interest.
17. It is not true to say that I have misused the blank cheque
which was delivered to my father. Any staff member of accused’s
partnership firm had delivered the disputed cheque to me. I had talk
with staff member on that day. It is true to say that the statement made
in my affidavit that “at the time of issuing the said cheque, accused
nos.2 and 3 had assured the complainant that they would make
adequate arrangements in the account of the accused no.1 is clear the
cheque on presentation” is incorrect. Witness volunteers that the staff
members had assured me. It will correct to say that Exh.30 is the only
bill of exchange with me. It is true to say that I had not accompanied
my father when he went to meet Mr. Pujit Agrawal till he was alive. It is
true to say that the statement made in my affidavit that the bill of
-- 2 of 3 --
9 C.C.No.1157/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
exchange was renewed from time to time is incorrect. It is true to say
that there is no statement made in my affidavit of examination in chief
that father had paid money to the accused. It is not true to say that I
don’t have any personal knowledge of the disputed transaction. It is not
true to say that the disputed cheque was lying with my father as a
security and I have misused the said cheque. It is true to say that I did
not make any written correspondence with accused till March 2018. It
is not true to say that I have no authority to file the present complaint
on behalf of other members of my undivided family. It is true to say
that there is no document which shows that the other members of my
undivided family have given consent to file the present case. It is not
true to say that I have filed the false complaint. It is not true to say that
the accused are not liable to pay the cheque amount.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
(B.S.Sankpal)
Date : 15.07.2026 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code – MH02385
-- 3 of 3 --