( 1 ) THE suit is filed to recover the amounts lent and advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The suit is based on a dishonoured cheque. The cheque was issued by the Defendant towards the repayment of the said amount.

( 2 ) THE Defendant admits that the loan was advanced. The Defendant admits that he issued the cheque towards the repayment and that the same was dishonoured.

( 3 ) TWO defences were raised. It was contended that the entire amount had been repaid. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable as a summary Suit.

( 4 ) THE payment by cheques referred to by the defendant are each in the sum of Rs. 4500/- paid half yearly. This does not evidence repayment of the principal amount. It in fact evidences an agreement on the part of the parties for interest at 18% per annum. In paragraph 11 of the reply, the Defendant has also contended that he paid an aggregate sum of rs. 27,500/ -. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the same. There was no reply to the plaintiffs advocate notice demanding payment. This defence has been raised for the first time.

( 5 ) THE first defence is thus without any substance.

( 6 ) MR. LULIA, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant contended that a suit even on a dishonoured cheque is not maintainable as a summary suit as cheques are not included within the provisions of Order 37 Rule 1 sub-rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure which reads as under :-" (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely - (a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes ; (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising, - (i) on a written contract ; or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty ; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. "

( 7 ) THE submission is unfounded. The terms "bill of exchange" and "cheque" are not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. The terms must derive their meaning from the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under :-"6. "cheque" - A "cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, the expressions - (a) "a cheque in the electronic form" means a cheque which contains the exact mirror image of a paper cheque, and is generated, written and signed in a secure system ensuring the minimum safety standards with the use of digital signature (with or without biometrics signature) and asymmetric crypto system ; (b) "a truncated cheque" means a cheque which is truncated during the course of a clearing cycle, either by the clearing house or by the bank whether paying or receiving payment, immediately on generation of an electronic image for transmission, substituting the further physical movement of the cheque in writing. Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the expression "clearing house" means the clearing house managed by the Reserve Bank of india or a clearing house recognised as such by the Reserve Bank of india. "

( 8 ) THUS a cheque is a bill of exchange and a suit based on a dishonoured cheque is maintainable as a Summary Suit.

( 9 ) IN Purnima Jaitly v. Ravi Bansi Jaisingh (2003) 11 LJ SOFT 50 = AIR 2003 Bombay 494, it was held that the suit was not maintainable as a Summary suit. The same was filed to recover the amounts lent and advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and was based on a cheque issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant. It is important to note however that the position in the present case is entirely different. The Plaintiff has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document