SURENDRA Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. Ramesh, learned Counsel for petitioner holding brief for Sri M. V. Sheshachala and Sri D. Manamohan holding brief for sri C. S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the respondents. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with the allegations to the effect that the deceased mahadevaiah had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- in the year 1991 and thereafter he had issued two cheques dated 28. 11. 1991 and

(2.) 12. 1991 towards the repayment of that loan. The plaint further mentioned that Mahadevajah had written the dates on the cheques on 18. 5. 1992 under his signature.

(3.) IN the plaint, it has been alleged that the two cheques have been returned without encashment, so he had also given the notice and thereafter filed the suit for recovery with the allegations that the cheques had been dishonoured by the Bank. In the valuation clause the reference had also been made, as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction etc. is amount due from defts under Cheque no. 0982624 for Rs. 20,000/- and amount due from defts under cheque No. 0982625 for Rs. 20,000/- and the plaintiff has prayed for recovery, in total for a sum of Rs. 59,000/- which included the interest amount t6 the tune of Rs. 19416/ -. The defendant without furnishing any written statement fifed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d)read with Section 151 CPC with the allegations to the effect that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation and plaint should be returned and suit should be dismissed. The Trial Court allowed the applications and dismissed the suit and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (d) of the cpc and ordered refund of the Court-fee under Section 63. The court below has rejected the plaint after finding that the suit as per plaint allegations was prima facie time barred and plaintiff could not get the benefit of Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, as cheques had been dishonoured. Mere handing over of cheques by the deft to plaintiff will not amount to payment of the part amount of it and it cannot be taken to be acknowledgement of any liability of any debt. As such Sections 18 or 19 is not of any help to the plaintiff. Having recorded these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the application.