ORDER :

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

The appellant filed O.S No.25 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the respondents herein. According to him, the respondents 2 and 3 herein approached him in December 2009 for financial assistance ; they borrowed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 25.04.2010 and executed a cheque for the said sum in favour of the appellant ; they borrowed a further sum of Rs.15,00,000 on 25.05.2010 and executed another cheque for the said sum favouring the appellant ; the cheques were drawn on Canara Bank and signed by the third respondent herein in his capacity as the authorised signatory of the first respondent firm ; the respondents did not settle the loan liability ; the appellant issued notice dated Notice dated 18.11.2011 (Ex.A3) ; Ex.A6 reply notice was issued controverting the notice averments. Hence, OS No.25 of 2012 was instituted on 12.01.2012.

2.The defendants denied the suit claim. According to them, the cheques in question have been forged. One Ganesh Kumar, an employee of the third respondent was accused of having committed the act. They contended that the object of filing the suit was to force them to withdraw the criminal complaint. Based on the rival pleadings, the court below framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. The third defendant examined himself as DW1. One Paunraj and Nagarathram were examined as DW2 and DW3. Ex.B1 to B12 were marked on the side of the defendants. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019. Assailing the same, this appeal has been filed.

3.The first submission advanced by the respondents’ counsel is summarised as follows :

When a cheque is issued, it should be presented for payment to the drawee. Failure to do so would absolve the drawer of liability. Since the cheques in question were not presented for payment, no suit will lie for recovery against the drawer of the cheques. Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would come in the way.

4.Let us examine this contention. Section 64(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is as follows :

“64.Presentment for payment.—

[(1)] Promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques must be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or drawee thereof respectively, by or on behalf of the holder as hereinafter provided. In default of such presentment, the other parties thereto are not liable thereon to such holder.

[Where authorized by agreement or usage, a presentment through the post office by means of a registered letter is sufficient.]

Exception.—Where a promissory note is payable on demand and is not payable at a specified place, no presentment is necessary in order to charge the maker thereof...”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Limited v. Punjab National Bank and ors (2013) 10 SCC 642 held that the statutory requirement of presentment under Section 64 for payment is mandatory and the words “must be” clearly express the legislative intent. The failure to present will absolve the “other parties thereto” of all liability. But who are those “other parties thereto” is the moot question.

5.Section 64(1) of the Act deals with promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. The expression “respectively” found in the provision should be understood as a word of severance. P.Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon defines it as follows :

“Relatively to each of several things in the order in which they are specified”.

It is, therefore, obvious that a promissory note must be presented for payment to its maker, bill of exchange to the acceptor and cheque to the drawee.

6.There has been a cleavage of judicial opinion as to whether the drawer of the cheque also would fall within the sweep of the expression “the other parties thereto”. Some of the High Courts took the view t