Only in cases of fraud amount of bills of exchange cannot be paid.

These second appeals arise out of a common judgment in A.S. Nos. 346 and 381 of 1983, on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dt. 16-11-1983 which in turn arose out of a judgment and decree in O.S. No. 6589 of 1982, on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The 1st defendant in the said suit is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1089 of 1984 and the plaintiff in the said suit is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1510 of 1984. The second respondent in both the second appeals was the second defendant in the suit. (The parties will be referred to hereafter as plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 for the sake of convenience).

3. The plaintiff succeeded in the trial Court by getting a decree as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the 1st defendant as well as the second defendant preferred two appeals, and the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the 1st defendant in part, dismissed the appeal filed by the 2nd. defendant. The 2nd defendant has not, however, preferred any further appeal. The 1st defendant has filed S.A. No. 1089 of 1984 against the portion of the judgment which went against it, while the plaintiff has filed S.A. No. 1510 of 1984 against that portion of the judgment allowing in part the appeal filed by the 1st defendant.

4. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the suit may now be noted. The plaintiff placed an order on the 1st defendant for the supply of one number of Model T. 650W truck mounted water well drilling rig (hereinafter called 'the rig') with complete standard accessories. The 1st defendant supplied the rig after receiving an advance of 10% of the value and delivered the same to the plaintiff on 26-12-1981. For the balance of sale consideration, the 1st defendant raked as many as ten Bilk of Exchange dt. 26-11-1981 on the plaintiff as well as Canara Bank, Guindy, Madras-32 for different amounts and forwarded the same for acceptance. The Bills were duly accepted both by the plaintiff as well as by the 2nd defendant-Canara Bank, agreeing to pay the sums noted in the Bills of Exchange on the due dates mentioned therein. The plaintiff, after taking delivery of the rig, has given a Certificate of Commissioning of the rig to the 1st defendant.The plaintiff has been using the rig for quite some time. While so, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant failed to get the registration of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act as undertaken and as a result of which, the plaintiff incurred heavy loss. According to the plaintiff, until registration is made, the sale is not complete and, therefore, the 1st defendant is not entitled to receive any payment under the Bills of Exchange. The plaintiff has also stated that the rig supplied by the 1st defendant was manufactured in the year 1979 as a prototype and was lying idle for want of buyers and by making false representations, induced the plaintiff to purchase the same. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff came forward with a suit for injunction restraining the 1st defendant from receiving any payment from the 2nd defendant-Bank on the basis of ten Bills of Exchange dt. 26-12-1981 referred to above, and also for an injunction against defendant 2 from making payment on the basis of the same Bills of Exchange.

5. The defendant 1 contested the suit contending that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the 1st defendant never agreed to get the vehicle registered in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, or promised to complete the registration within 15 days from the date of delivery of the rig. It further denied the statement of the plaintiff that the sale of the rig was not complete. According to the 1st defendant, the sale of the rig was complete when the plaintiff paid the price through I.D.R.I. Scheme by accepting 10 Bills of Exchange and also by taking delivery of the rig. It is the case of the 1st def