HEMMO PHARMA Vs. DAWOOD SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts relevant and necessary for deciding this summons for judgment are that the plaintiff has filed this suit on two bills of exchange, one dated 3-4-1996 and other dated 19-7-1996. Both the bills of exchange are bill of exchange payable on demand. They are both drawn by the defendant No. 1 and accepted by the defendant No. 2. The suit has been instituted on 18-12-2000. The plaintiff is claiming that the period of limitation is extended against both the defendants, because of part payment made on 24-7-1998 by the defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE defence of the defendants is that the period of limitation as against the defendant No. 2 will not get extended because of payment made by the defendant No. 1 on 24-7-1998 and as a part of the claim made in this suit is not triable in summary manner, both the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff relies on the provisions of section 19 of the Indian Contract Act and following judgments: -. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of (Gaya Prasad and others v. Babu Ram and another) A. I. R. 1928 Allahabad 387; ii. The judgment of the Appellate Court in the case of (Pachibenta Lakshmi Naidu v. Somahanti Gunnamma alias Chinnammi and others) 418 The Indian Law Reports (Vol. LVII ). iii. The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Pachibenta Lakshmi Naidu v. Somahanti Gunnamma alias Chinnamml and others. iv. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (Achola Sundari Debi v. Doman Sundari Debi and others) A. I. R. 1926 Calcutta 150.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, on the other hand, points out that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20 payment made by the drawer will not extend the period of limitation as against the acceptor.