MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,51,74,220/- along with interest. The said suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of the said amount under order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure as a Summary Suit. The aforesaid summary Suit was based on two cheques which were issued by the appellants, which when presented by the respondent were dishonoured. Consequently, the suit was filed in terms of Order XXXVII Code of Civil Procedure seeking decree for realisation of the aforesaid amount along with the interest.

( 2 ) THE appellant had filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the CPC praying for grant of leave to defend the suit. The said application was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge and on a detailed examination of the records and the pleadings of the parties, the said application was dismissed on the ground that the defence taken by the appellant was sham and illusory and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to leave to defend the suit and the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to have the judgment in terms of the provisions of the Order XXXVII of CPC. Consequently, the decree was passed as against which the present appeal is filed by the appellants.

( 3 ) THE first submission that is made by the counsel appearing for the appellant is with regard to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge rejecting the contention of the appellant that the suit is barred by limitation. The contention that was made in the application filed seeking leave to defend was that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation as the same was filed after three years from the date mentioned on the cheques,i. e. , 16. 3. 2000. In support of the contention the learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the provision of Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 which defines "cheque" which reads as follows:-Section 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. "

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant stated that we should read the said provision along with Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as under:-

"article 35:- On a bill of exchange or promissory note payable on demand and not accompanied by any writing restraining or postponing the right to sue. Period of limitation " Three years. Time from which period begins to run:- The date of the bill or note. "

( 5 ) ON a joint reading of both the provisions, counsel for the appellants submits before us that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation as the date when the suit was filed was 23. 5. 2003.

( 6 ) THE aforesaid contention was also raised before the learned Single Judge who has rejected the same holding that the aforesaid two cheques although both dated 16. 3. 2000, were presented to the banker for encashment and the same were returned to the respondent on the ground that funds "not arranged for" on 1. 6. 2000. Therefore, the limitation would start running only from 1. 6. 2000.

( 7 ) WE find no illegality in the aforesaid order. The cheques were given by the appellants to the respondent only on 16. 3. 2000. The aforesaid cheques were to be encashed after presentation in terms of Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881. The cause of action in the suit was dishonour of the cheque and not merely issuance of the cheque. On issue of cheque, the suit could not have been filed. Only on dishonour of the cheques that the right to sue accrued. The said cheques were returned back to the respondent unpaid on the ground "not arranged for" on 1. 6. 2000 and, therefore, the period of l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document