J&K BANK LTD Vs. QAZI TAJ DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1205/1/ was filed on the footing of a pronote. In the pro note the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - is expressed in word in the body of the instrument whereas on the to of the pronote in one corner the amount of Rs 1,500/ - is specified in figures. The suit was being tried by a Single Bench of this Court and the argument "of the defence counsel was that under S. 18, Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount undertaken to be paid should be the amount mentioned in words in the body of the instrument and not the amount specified in figures in the corner of the pronote. The learned Judge referred this case to the Full Bench for deciding the law point whether the amount undertaken should be the amount mentioned in words in the body of the pronote or the amount specified in figures in the corner of the pronote.

(2.) THE counsel for the defendant has argued that under S. 18, Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount mentioned in words should have preference to the amount stated in figures in the pronote. Our attention has been drawn to S. 18 which reads as under: "If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid." From the peremptory nature of S. 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that when a difference arises between the sum expressed in words in the body of the instrument and that mentioned in figures, the amount mentioned in words will be taken to be the sum for which the, instrument was made payable. In the pronote the amount undertaken to be paid is mentioned in words so that there may be no danger of its being altered subsequently. The mandatory nature of S. 18 gives no choice to the Courts to give preference to the sum mentioned in figures over the amount mentioned in words. The sum denoted by words in the pronote is to be taken to be the amount payable and no evidence can be adduced to show that in fact the sum mentioned in figures was paid and not the amount stated in words. . -

(3.) IN Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 2 page 468, it is laid down as follows: "It is customary for bills and notes to have the amount written in figures at the top of the instrument & in words in the body of the instrument. Where there is a discrepancy between the two the sum denoted by the words is the amount payable and evidence cannot be adduced to show that in fact there was a mistake made in omit -, ting words in the body of the instrument. The figures at the top are not in fact a necessary part of an instrument, though they commonly placed there. It would seem their original purpose was that the amount of the instrument might strike the eye immediate and be a note, index, or summary of the contents."