BENARES BANK LIMITED Vs. HORMUSJI PESTONJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the plaintiffs, who claimed to recover two Sums of money on two hundis, dated respectively 3 January 1925 and 2 February, 1925 for the sums of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The drawers of the hundis are defendants 1 and 2(respondents 1 and 2 here) and the drawee was defendant 3 (respondent 3, Ramji Das, before us). Ramji Das accepted the two hundis. The plaintiff bank alleged that they presented the hundis for payment on due dates, but this allegation of theirs has been negatived by the Court below. Then it was argued before the Court below that under Section 64, Negotiable Instruments Act, the acceptor was liable even if there was no presentment for payment, The Court below did not accept this view of the law, and holding that the drawers and the acceptor were exempted from payment owing to want of presentment, it dismissed the suit as against defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 confessed judgment, and accordingly a decree was passed against him.

(2.) In this Court only one point has been urged, and it is this. Under Section 64, Negotiable Instruments Act, the result of non-presentment of the hundis for payment was not the exemption of the acceptor from liability, but the exemption of other parties to the hundis. We have to see how far this contention is correct.

(3.) A large number of cases have been cited before us, but before I proceed to examine the cases it will be useful to examine the provision of the law itself.