COX AND COMPANY Vs. HPESTONJI AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed this suit against the, defendants to recover the amount due on forty- eight bills of exchange. These bills were drawn in England against certain shipments of goods which arrived in due course in Bombay. Twenty-five bills were drawn, by Messrs. Royle and Binns, twenty by Davies Black and Co. Ltd.; and three by Wilkinson and Warbnrton Ltd., and they were all negotiated in London through Messrs. Cox and Co. who sent the bills to Bombay to be collected by their branch office. According to the particulars B,D and F to the plaint the bills were all accepted by the defendants and were duly presented on their respective due dates to the defendants for payment, hut were dishonoured, and by mutual consent the time for payment was extended to the times mentioned in the said particulars. In spite of the extensions of time so granted the defendants failed to make any payments on the bills, except the sum of 274-12-10 mentioned in the particulars to the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sued to recover the amount of Rs. 4,24,996-8-0 with further interest from December 16, 1922, till Judgment and costs of the suit and interest on judgment at the rate of six per cent. per annum till payment.

(2.) Various contentions were raised by the defendants in their written statement, but at the trial issues were raised not only on the pleadings but also on certain other questions not raised in the pleadings. Arguments were heard on the latter issues, which were decided in favour of the defendants with the result that the suit was dismissed with costs. For the purposes of this appeal the only issues are: (1) Whether the bills drawn by the three firms already mentioned were duly stamped and admissible in evidence. (2) Whether if any of the bills were admissible in evidence, they were not effectively cancelled.

(3.) On the first question as to whether the bills of exchange were duly stamped and admissible in evidence, the Judge held that thirty-seven of the bills were inadmissible, because material alterations bad been made on them, and, therefore, they became new instruments which required to be stamped under Section 3(b) of the Indian Stamp Act. With regard to the eleven bills on which there had been, in the opinion of the learned Judge, no material alteration, he held that they were admissible in evidence, but that, as the due dates had been altered, they were effectively cancelled, and there being no new bills available on which to base the suit, the plaintiffs claim should fail with regard to those bills also.