9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff acknowledging the liability under the promissory note. Thus, the defendants 1 and 2 as principal borrowers and the third defendant as guarantor are jointly and severally liable for the suit claim. No amount was paid in spite of lawyer's notice. Hence the suit. 4. The defendants 1 and 3 filed a common written statement as follows: Defendants 1 and 2 did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff on 25-11-1976, but they signed a blank promissory note and gave it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has several concerns in different names as partner, and the second defendant had dealings with the plaintiff's various concerns and he (plaintiff) habitually takes blank promissory notes from the borrowers. In particular the plaintiff took the signature of defendants 1 and 2 in blank promissory note mentioning the figure of ₹ 70,000 and the year 1971 and another blank promissory note for a similar sum in 1973. Neither the date nor the name of the promisee was mentioned in the said promissory note. The defendants have fully settled the amounts due under the dealings with the plaintiff's concerns, but the plaintiff did not return the promissory notes. Even the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2 executed the promissory note on 25-11-1976 in favour of the plaintiff. There was no response and this suit was filed on 2-2-1980 on the blank promissory note, i.e., without filling in the material particulars, namely, the date and name of the promisse. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the claim is barred by limitation, that they never borrowed any money from the plaintiff on 25-11-1976 and that the suit laid on the incomplete promissory note is not maintainable. Two years and nine months after the filing of the suit the plaintiff filed application No. 4350 of 1982, praying for permission of the court to allow the plaintiff to fill up the blanks in the incomplete promissory note. The application was hotly contested and Maheswaran J. in his order dated 21-1-1983, allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to fill the name of the payee and the date in the promissory note without prejudice to the contentions of the defendants with regard the limitation, material alteration, the validity of the instrument etc. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filled up the blanks and the suit was taken up for trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and he has gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accrue to him even to the extent of the authority given to him. In Griffiths v. Dalton, 1940-2 KB 264, it has been held that 'the prima facie authority to fill in the date given by S. 20 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, to the person in possession of the cheque, must, at common law, be exercised within a reasonable time', in M. N. P. L. Firm v. Kirman Gyan, (1912) 17 Ind Cas 916 (1) the Lower Burma Chief Court held that 'a payee can fill in a blank inchoate instrument and sue on it himself after filling it or endorse it to someone: but no decree can be passed on a blank instrument not containing the name of the payee.' In Brijbhusan Pande v. Ramjanam Kuer, AIR 1932 Pat 314, a single Judge has held that where the instrument does not mention the name of the payee at all, no decree can be passed on such instrument. It is, of course, stated therein that the payee can fill in the blank instrument and unless he does so, he is not entitled to bring a suit and obtain a decree. In Ramaswami Reddi v. K. Doraiswami Reddi , a Division Bench of our High Court held that the remedy of the promise is to file a suit on the original cause of action and that he can treat the promi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and such a transaction, even if the defendants have signed their names in the incomplete promissory note, should not be upheld on grounds of public policy also. It is not as if the instrument is a bill of exchange, and it is gathered from the evidence that he gets signatures of the drawers on blank promissory notes and then uses them to his advantage whenever required. Thus, the sanctity of the promissory note is lost and such a shady transaction cannot be upheld by a court of law. 10. The evidence of P. W. 1 also fortifies my conclusion on this aspect. P. W. 1 is the plaintiff and he is a partner of Uttam Prabhat Industries comprising of six partners. The first defendant is doing the same business in stainless steel with the plaintiff-firm. Admittedly, P.W. 1 used to finance the first defendant by advancing moneys for commission and interest. P. W. 1 used to finance the first defendant by advancing moneys for commission and interest. P. W. 1 further conceded that he used to advance moneys in the name of the other partners of the firm also. P. W. 1 is admittedly an income-tax and wealth tax assessee and he has conceded that the suit sum advanced to the defendant will be reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
