JUDGMENT AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. - Through this appeal judgment and decree dated 19.11.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haroonabad whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.
300,000/- on the basis of cheque, under Order XXVII of the C.P.C. Has been decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent on 18.8.2003 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
300,000/- on the basis of a cheque. The defendant was summoned. He filed application for grant of leave to defend the suit on 24.2.2004. The reply was filed and application was contested but on 8.3.2004, learned counsel for the plaintiff made a statement before the Court that if the defendant is ready to i.e surety bond equivalent to the suit amount, he will not object to the grant of leave to defend the suit, therefore, the defendant was granted the leave. The defendant filed written statement on 12.4.2004. The learned Trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence and v/de judgment arid decree dated 19.11.2005 decreed the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant mainly tried to plead his case through the argument that the application moved by the petitioner on 22.10.2005 under Order VI, Rule 17 of .The C.P.C. For permission to amend the written statement has not been decided. The learned counsel while relying upon the case of Kamran Akhter. Jawed Ahmed Khan (2005 CLC 797) argued that as the cheque was presented to the Bank for encashment after six months of its issuance, therefore, the suit under summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. Was not competent. Adds that as the name of the plaintiff is not written on the cheque, therefore, the suit was not competent under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. The learned counsel prayed that the case .May be remanded to the Trial Court with a direction that the same be transmitted to the ordinary Civil Court for retrial of the suit.
4. On die other hand, die learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and stated that the defendant/appellant has admitted his signatures on the cheque.
5. I have heard the learned counsel lor the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that application of the appellant/defendant for permission to amend the written statement has not been decided is false as his application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 22.10.2005. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to case-law reported as Kamran Akhter v.
Jawed Ahmed Khan (supra) that when cheque is presented after six months of the date of issue suit under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. Cannot be filed and it can be tried as a regular civil suit, is concerned, in my view Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. Provides a summary procedure if leave is not granted but when leave is granted it becomes a regular suit as all the proceedings after the grant of leave are regular proceedings and summary procedure goes away at the time of grant of leave to defend the suit. In this view of the matter, the prayer of the learned counsel that the case be remanded and the Trial Court be directed to treat it an ordinary civil suit and decide it afresh is worthless. Further in the light of Section 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 a bearer cheque also comes within the definition of negotiable instrument, therefore, if the name of the plaintiff/respondent was not written on the cheque even then the suit was rightly filed and decreed by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff/respondent himself appeared as P. W.l and, produced four1 other witnesses to prove his case and the learned Trial Court while discussing all the . Material evidence available op the record rightly decreed the suit. No case for. Interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. This appeal is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed.