9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal itself is time-barred. 2. Whether the trial court was justified in inferring that the three cheques had been post-dated. 3. Whether the trial court was justified in starting the new term of limitation from the dates the cheques were handed over instead of the dates on the cheques themselves. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the appeal itself is time-barred. The judgment in the suit was delivered on 30-11-1961, and the appeal was filed on 18-4-1962. The appellant had to account for 47 days. He applied for a copy of the judgment immediately on 1-12-1961 and was asked to return on 5-12-1961. The record-room particulars arrived on 18-12-1961 and 20-12-1961. The appellant did not appear on 5-12-1961 due to illness and turned up on 3-1-1962. The court examined whether the period between 20-12-1961 and 3-1-1962 should be excluded. The court noted that the copying department could have informed the appellant by post once the particulars were ready. Thus, the period between 1-12-1961 and 3-1-1962 should be excluded. The court concluded that the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame, considering the exclusion of the period up to 17-1-1962. Issue 2: Whether the trial court was justified in inferring that the three cheques had been post-dated. The trial court found that the three cheques were post-dated based on the evidence provided by D.W. 2. However, the written statement by the defendants did not indicate that the cheques were post-dated. The defendants denied issuing the first two cheques and claimed the third cheque was unrelated to the transaction. The court emphasized that negotiable instruments are presumed to be issued on the date mentioned unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court criticized the defendant's attempt to exploit a limitation defense without prior pleading and concluded that the cheques were issued on the dates mentioned on their face. Issue 3: Whether the trial court was justified in starting the new term of limitation from the dates the cheques were handed over instead of the dates on the cheques themselves. The trial court applied a single Bench ruling, which held that the passing of a cheque starts a new period of limitation under Section 20, irrespective of whether the cheque is honored. However, the trial court introduced a refinement not present in the ruling, stating that the limitation period starts from the date the cheque is handed over if it is post-dated. The court disagreed with this refinement, stating that the acknowledgment or promise is effective from the date on the cheque, not the date of handing over. The court held that the promise or acknowledgment is referable to the date on the cheque, and thus, the suit filed on 13-9-1957 was within the limitation period. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment of dismissal, and decreed the suit for the principal amount and interest. Future interest was also payable at 6% per annum. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff-appellant in both courts, along with pleader's fees calculated according to rules.
|
