A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal that arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 6,300/- from the defendant.

( 2 ) ON the 10th of September 1947 the plaintiff paid in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the defendant bank at its Nayaganj Branch in the city of Kanpur for the preparation of a draft in the name of one Dr. Ram Narain of Lucknow, A draft bearing No. 56/47 was prepared for Rs. 6,000/- and was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff retained the draft with himself and did not hand it over to Sri Ram Narain. He informed the defendant that the draft should be cancelled and the money paid back to him. He also offered to furnish an indemnity bond for the amount though he contended that it was not necessary. The defendant bank, however, refused to pay the amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore sought to recover Rs. 6,000/- the amount originally deposited by him for the purchase of the draft and Rs. 300/- interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, per annum. The total amount claimed was thus Rs. 6,300/ -.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant who admitted that the plaintiff had paid in Rs. 6,000/for the purchase of the draft and that the draft having been prepared in the name of Sri Ram narain Shukla had been handed over to the plaintiff. It, however, contended that the plaintiff had no authority to cancel the instructions already acted upon and that it was only Sri Ram Narain in whose name the draft had been prepared who could claim the amount. The plaintiff, it was urged, had no right left and could not get the amount or any interest thereon. It was denied that the plaintiff had at any time gone to the defendant with the draft in question or had notified his intention to cancel it. It was also pleaded that Sri Ram Narain was in any case a necessary party and the suit could not proceed without his being impleaded.

( 4 ) THE suit was tried by the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur. He relying on the case of Malik barkat Ali v. Imperial Bank of India, Calcutta, AIR 1945 Lah 213 took the view that though the plaintiff had purchased the draft the only person who could claim its amount and give a discharge to the bank in respect of it was Sri Ram Narain Shukla, the person in whose favour the draft had been prepared and it was not open to the plaintiff to cancel the draft or to stop its payment. The plaintiff in the opinion of the learned Civil Judge could not give a valid discharge and the defendant was therefore not liable to pay the amount claimed to the plaintiff. He also held that ram Narain Shukla was a proper party but the plaintiff could not be forced to implead him. The plaintiff could in this suit get the rights between himself and the defendant adjudicated even in the absence of Ram Narain Shukla. On the basis of his first finding, however, the learned Civil judge dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff has now come up in appeal. The interesting point which his learned counsel has raised for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the present case the plaintiff who was the purchaser of the draft could cancel it and claim from the defendant the amount he had paid for getting the draft.

( 6 ) SO far as the facts are concerned they are clear. It is common ground that it was the plaintiff who paid Rs. 6,000/- in defendants branch at Nayaganj for the purchase of a draft and that he instructed the defendant to prepare the draft in the name of Dr. Ram Narain Shukla. It is also admitted that the draft was prepared and handed over to the plaintiff. , It also appears that the draft remained all along with the plaintiff and was never delivered by him to Dr. Ram Narain shukla. The learned Civil Judge was not prepared to believe that the draft was given to Dr. Shukla or his wife and his view on the point appears to be quite correct. Though the draft was current for six months it was never presented for payment by Dr. Ram Narain Shukla. On the contrary soon after it had been purchased the plain