' By order, dated 25-11-1998. I had decreed this suit in the sum of Rs,46,000 for reasons to be recorded. Following are the detailed reasons for same.
' Brief facts of the case are that the defendants used to purchase finished leather goods from the plaintiff on cash basis. However, after a certain period the plaintiff also began to supply these goods to the defendant on credit and by way of security the defendants issued post cross cheques during the period from 15-9-1989 to 4-2-1990. Thus the total liability of the defendants in respect of various bills raised by the plaintiffs on them was for Rs,13,18,898.40. Post dated cheques issued by the defendnts in respect of these bills were for a value of Rs,13,16,543. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to pay the outstanding amounts in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiffs to them and consequently the plaintiffs presented the cheques issued by the defendants to their banks but all these cheques were dishonoured, with remarks "refer to drawer" or payment stopped. Plaintiff, therefore, having no option, filed this suit for recovery of the outstanding amounts of 13,18,95,40 alongwith interest accrued of Rs,2,42,617.60 thereby making a total of Rs,16,23,560.00.
' On the other hand the defendants, while admitting the business relationship between the parties state that the relationship between the owner of the plaintiff and defendant was very good as a result the post dated cheques were given only way of security and not to be encashed. The 'defendants contended that all payments against the post dated cheques were made in cash to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff for mala fide motives did not return the post dated cheques to the defendnts and have now filed this suit only to make unlwaful gains. The defendants also point out that certain cheques that the plaintiffs are relying on were never issued by them. They in particular Cheque No.Issued in favour ofIssued by Amount Date of cheque
1. C- 038804Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International46,000 15-9-1989
2. C- 038810Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International82,743 7-10-1989
3. C- 038813Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International2,00,000 10-10-1989
4. C- 038809Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International1,00,000 15-10-1989
5. C- 038814Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International2,00,000 20-10-1989 6.
01822407Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International1,00,000 24-10-1989
7. C- 038815Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International1,75,000 30-10-1989 8.C- 040338Cash Progressive Enterprises1,70,000 31-12-1989
9. C- 048311Tano Craft. Ltd. Haksons International46,000 12-1-1990 10 KC- 468833Tano Craft. Ltd. Naseer Trading enterprises1,96,800 4-2-1990refer to two cheques, one issued by Progressive Enterprises and the other by Nasir Trading for amounts of Rs,1,17,000 and 1,09,000 respectively. The defendants, therefore, state that they have no liability in respect of these post dated cheques relied upon by the plaintiffs and they, therefore, reject the plaintiff's claim.
' Based on the pleading of the parties following issues were framed. Whether the suit as filed is barred by limitation?
' Whether the Cheque as mentioned in paragraph No,5. Of the plaint Nos.8 and 10 were issued by defendant No,1?
' Whether the amounts mentioned in the plaint has been paid off? What should the decree be?
' The plaintiff examined one witness being Director of their company whereas the defendants examined one witness Khalid Hakeem who was apparently the owner of the defendant before it ceased to exist, as maintained by the said witness. My findings wilth regard to above issues are as under.
Issue Nos. 1 and 2.
' I find it will be appropriate to consider both these issues together in view of the fact that the question of limitation arises in case of most cheques but not in case of some cheques. The plaintiff's witness has exhibited the folowing cheques.
' Considering that the suit was filed on 31-12-1992 and keeping this in mind, if the above chart is exmained it would be manifest that all the above cheques except for cheques at serial No,8, 9 and 10 would be barred by time since they were issued before three years of the date of filing of the suit. In so for as the cheque at serial No,8 is concerned an examination of the cheque shows that it is a cash cheque and is issued by Progressive Enterprises and not by the defendants. So is the cheque at serial No,10 which is issued by Naseer Trading Enterprises. The defendants in their written statement as well as in the evidence record have denied the issuance of these cheques. In fact on the face of it, it would appear that this is a cheque issued by somebody else. Even the name of the plaintiff is not mentioned as payee in respect of cheque at serial 8. Consequently, I do not see how the plaintiffs can rely on the cheques for their claim against the defendants. I would, therefore, disregard this cheque as not having been issued by the defendant. In so far as the cheque at serial No,9 is concerned this is clearly in the name of the plaintiff and is issued by the defendants and is also within time and consequently the defendants would be liable in respect of this cheque.
Issue No,3.
' An examination of the record of evidence would show that the plaintiff's witness admits to not having issued any legal notice or for that matter having entered into any correspondence with the defendants in respect of the dishonoured cheques before the filing of the suit. This to my mind appears to be very unusual. There is thus considerable weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that these cheques were perhaps meant as security for the supplies made by the plaintiff to the defendant. It would thus appear that this suit was filed merely by way of an afterthought. My tacit view therefore, would be that in all probability amounts in question were perhaps all paid but since the defendants have not been able to produce any receipt for such payments it would not be possible for me to hold that such was the case.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that all the cheques produced by plaintiff's witness during evidence were time barred except three cheques that I have mentioned above, two of which I have already held to have not been issued by the defendants. Under the circumstances, I find that the only liability that the defendants have to the plaintiffs' is in respect of the cheques at serial No,9 for Rs,46,000. This suit is, therfore, decreed in the sum of Rs,46000 alongwith interest/profit/mark up at the rate of Rs,14 per cent. Per annum from the date of filing of this suit till payment..