A suit based on a dishonored cheque presented during the lifetime of the drawer is maintainable under Order 37 CPC against the legal heirs/representatives who have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.

1. This petition purportedly filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is directed against the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in File No. 23/Civil titled Rajesh Madanlal Anand v. Rakesh Madanlal Anand and another whereby the trial Court has refused to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) and has treated the same as a regular suit.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that this Petition has been filed by the petitioner purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but the same has been numbered by the Registry as Civil Revision. Admittedly, the order impugned does not determine the rights of the parties finally. By virtue of the order impugned, the trial Court has simply refused to entertain the suit under Order 37 of CPC and has treated the same as a regular suit. The rights of the parties are, therefore, yet to be determined in the suit which would be tried as a regular suit in view of the order of the trial Court impugned in this petition. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the fact that the Revision Petition against the order impugned is not maintainable, the petition in hand if falls within the parameters of law laid down for invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has ample powers to interfere and render justice as may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is in this backdrop, I have considered the rival contentions of the petitioner who has appeared in person, and, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leadings to the filing of this petition.

4. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are the sons of late Madanlal Anand whereas respondent No.2 is daughter. The petitioner claims that late Sh. Madanlal Anand, during his life time was holding 550 equity shares and 750 preference shares in the Company known by the name of Macks Hard Pvt. Ltd. and was also holder of 5 equity shares in Lal-Roe Measuring Tools Pvt. Ltd. It is further claimed that after the death of late Shri Madanlal Anand, the plaintiff along with respondents and their mother Mrs. Swaraj Madanlal Anand succeeded to the estate of late Shri Madanlal Anand including the aforementioned shares in the two companies named above. The mother of the parties, namely, Smt. Swaraj Madanlal Anand allegedly advised the petitioner to adopt a combined and unified approach with the company and not to put up separate claims. It is stated that during the course of negotiation which took place between the petitioner and his mother, it was decided that the mother would issue to the petitioner a cheque of Rs.59.00 lakh in consideration of signing of certain documents for relinquishing his shares and the balance of 1/4th of the petitioners share of the dividend declared, i.e., Rs.31941/- would be paid later on. It is stated that as per the negotiation held, the mother of the parties Smt. Swaraj Madanlal Anand issued a cheque No. 085296 dated 17.10.2017 in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.59.00 lakh drawn on Dena Bank Maheshwari Udyan Matunga Branch, Mumbai representing part payment of the plaintiffs 1/4th share in the total dividend of Rs.2,37,27,764/-. The petitioner claims that after receiving the cheque for the aforesaid amount, he signed all the requisite documents in favour of his mother and the cheque was presented by him to the Dena Bank, Kunjwani Talab, Jammu for encashment on 23.10.2017. The petitioner was informed that the drawer of the cheque had stopped the payment and that the funds in the account of the drawer were insufficient to meet the cheque amo