LAWS(PVC)-1929-7-12

JOGESHCHANDRA DHAR Vs. MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM

Decided On July 03, 1929
JOGESHCHANDRA DHAR Appellant
V/S
MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action in which this appeal is taken was brought by the plaintiff, now appellant, for the recovery of Rs. 1044-8-0, which is the principal and interest alleged to be due on an instrument, which is described in the plaint as a hnndi or bill of exchange. To this suit are impleaded as defendant the Guptas (defendants 1 and 2), who borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff on 9 August 1924 and executed the hundi in question, promising to repay the same within 45 days from that data and Mahammad Ibrahim (defendant 3) and a firm known as Makbul Ahmed and Sons of Chittagong (defendant 4), who are alleged to have accepted the hundi or the bill of exchange. Both the Courts agreed in dismissing the plaintiff's suit against defendants 3 and 4 and in decreeing the suit ex parte against defendants 1 and 2, although their reasons for so doing are different. The lower appellate Court does not regard the instrument in question as a bill of exchange, within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but regards it as a promissory note and, as the Guptas are the makers of the promissory note, and not defendants 3 and 4, he considers defendants 3 and 4 are not bound by the instrument.

(2.) The plaintiff in this appeal contends that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the instrument in question was not a "bill of exchange," whereas the respondent contends that the deed is merely a promissory note and the question for determination in this appeal is whether the view taken by the lower appellate Court is right.

(3.) The document in question is in the following form, on a paper, which is described as a "hundi," in print: Forty-five days after date without grace we jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Babu Jogeshchandra Dhar, Chittagong, the sum of one thousand rupees only for value received in cash and that with interest at 3 per cent, per annum after due date. Prasannakumar Gupta.Ramkamal Gupta.