BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. S S JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is filed on 8 Bills of Exchange. THEy are all accepted by the defendants. THEre is no dispute as to that. In reply, the defendants have filed an affidavit dated 23rd February 1994 although they were served as far back as March 1991. As the affidavit in reply was only filed recently, the plaintiffs proceeded on the basis of denial. THE first defence which is canvassed before me is that the Summons for Judgment not having been taken out within 6 months. Unconditional leave should be granted. In my opinion, Rule 227 of the High Court O.S. Rules gives wider discretion to the Court especially in view of the fact that there is no defence on merits. I do not accept the submission. THE second submission was that the Bills were accepted on the basis of defendants being paid 1% and for the reasons mentioned in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit in reply and that actually no goods were supplied. As far as acceptor is concerned his liability in law is crystalised the minute he signs and thus accepts the bill and, therefore, under the bills accepted he is liable. Thirdly he has submitted that the officials of the plaintiff-Bank were involved in the fraud which was perpetrated between the Bank Officials and the drawer of the bills and that the acceptor having accepted the bills only on receiving 1% should not be held liable. This defence is stated to be rejected. If what the defendant says is correct the defendant has been a party to the fraud, he cannot be heard to claim his innocence. In any view of the matter, there is no defence whatsoever in the present matter. Original documents have been already tendered at the time of ex-parte decree passed against the defendants. Summons for Judgment made absolute as prayed. Decree as prayed. 2/3rd refund of the institution fees to the plaintiff. Advocate's costs quantified at Rs. 5792/-. Prothonotary to act on the minutes. Issuance of the certified copy of the minutes of this order expedited. Order accordingly.