JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S. No.3873 of 2001 on the file of II Fast Track Court Additional District Judge, Chennai, are the appellants in this appeal. The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S. No.3873 of 2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,97,466/- and a further sum of Rs.5,53,441/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of suit. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows:

The plaintiff is conducting chits of various denominations. On 29.09.1998, two crossed cheques drawn on the first defendant bank, in favour of one Suresh for a sum of Rs.13,355/- and for a sum of Rs.33,600/- respectively, were issued on behalf of the plaintiff. Similarly, on 27.02.1998, a third cheque drawn on the first defendant bank in favour of one Sankar for Rs.98,733/- was also issued on behalf of the plaintiff. All the three cheques were signed only by one V.Gururajan, the fifth defendant in the suit. There was no second signatory to any one of the three cheques. The bank was authorised to honour the cheques only if it is presented with the signatures of any two out of three authorised signatories of the plaintiff. The three cheques were presented for payment through the second defendant Bank. In utter disregard to the instructions given by the plaintiffs that the cheques issued on behalf of the plaintiff should be signed by any two of the defendants 3 to 6 and the Accounts Officer under the joint signatory system, the cheques issued on behalf of the plaintiff without the signatures of the authorised signatories have been honoured by the first defendant. The amounts have been paid to third parties through the cheques which were not signed by the authorised signatories as per the instructions given by the bank. Therefore, the plaintiff has incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.1,45,688/-. Again three more crossed cheques issued by the plaintiff in the name of one V.Sankar, K.Sankar and one S.Lakshmi for a sum of Rs.3,24,000/-, Rs.33,142/- and Rs.34,090/- respectively, were wrongly credited by the defendant bank in the Savings Bank Account maintained in the name of One S.Lakshmi and S.Sankar who were not the payees of the cheques. Thus the defendants 1 and 2 have assisted defendants 3 to 6 to defraud the plaintiff who has incurred a further loss to the tune of Rs.3,91,482/-. Since the three cheques were signed by 5th defendant, he was also made liable jointly with the first defendant for the amount due under the first count. Similarly, defendants 4 and 6 were also made liable for the sum of Rs.3,91,482/- due under the second count. The plaintiff prayed for interest at 12% till the date of plaint.

2. The suit was contested by the appellants mainly on the ground of limitation by stating that the cheques were drawn in the year 1997 and 1998 and that the suit which was not presented within three years from the drawing of the cheque is barred by limitation. It was further stated by the appellants in the written statement that the plaintiff's representative have requested the bank to pass the cheques with single signature and that the bank has received specific instructions authorising to honour the cheques signed by any one of the three authorised signatories of the plaintiff. As regards the wrong credits given by the defendant bank, it is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff filed a complaint before the Banking ombudsman, Chennai and that by order passed by the Banking ombudsman dated 24.02.2020, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the matter is still under police investigation and that therefore, the ombudsman cannot give any safe verdict. It is further stated that the suit without impleading the persons in whose favour the amount were credited is not maintainable. In other words, it is contended that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

3. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant bank has acted