9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of money based on dishonored cheques, application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, dismissal of the suit by Trial Court, maintainability of revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC, applicability of Limitation Act, exercise of revisional powers under Section 115 CPC, application of Article 227 of the Constitution for justice. Analysis: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 40,000 with allegations that the deceased borrower had issued two cheques towards repayment, which were dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds and the account holder's demise. The Trial Court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, citing time-barred claims and lack of benefit under Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff appealed under Sec. 115 of the CPC, arguing that the suit fell under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, not barred by limitation. The defendant contended that the suit was governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act, as the cause of action arose when the loan was advanced, not when the cheques were dishonored. The Court considered the maintainability of the revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC and the exercise of revisional powers. It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Baby v. Travancore Devaswom Board, emphasizing the additional power of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to ensure justice. The Court noted that the suit was for recovery based on dishonored cheques and not covered by any specific article in the Limitation Act. It concluded that the suit was within the limitation period from the date of the cheques' dishonor, allowing the petition, and directing the lower court to entertain and decide the suit on merits. In the detailed analysis, the Court highlighted the importance of not allowing technicalities to delay justice, citing principles from previous Supreme Court cases. It criticized the Trial Court for not properly examining the plaint and ignoring material allegations, leading to an erroneous view on the suit's nature and dismissal on time-barred grounds. The Court emphasized the need to prevent irreparable loss and injury caused by the lower court's illegal refusal to entertain the suit and exercise jurisdiction on merits. The Court, after a thorough examination, exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the impugned order and directed the lower court to entertain and decide the suit on merits, considering the suit within the limitation period. The judgment highlighted the significance of ensuring justice and preventing further delays or injustices caused by technicalities, ultimately allowing the petition and instructing each party to bear their own costs.
|
