JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - The appeal is by the plaintiffs, who claimed to recover two Sums of money on two'hundis, dated respectively 3rd January 1925 and 2nd February 1925 for the sums of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The drawers of the hundis are defendants 1 and 2(respondents 1 and 2 here) and the drawee was defendant 3(respondent 3, Ramji Das, before us). Ramji Das accepted the two hundis. The plaintiff bank alleged that they presented the hundis for payment on due dates, but this allegation of theirs has been negatived by the Court below. Then it was argued before the Court below that u/s 64, Negotiable Instruments Act, the acceptor was liable even if there was no presentment for payment, The Court below did not accept this view of the law, and holding that the drawers and the acceptor were exempted from payment owing to want of presentment, it dismissed the suit as against defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 confessed judgment, and accordingly a decree was passed against him.

2. In this Court only one point has been urged, and it is this. u/s 64, Negotiable Instruments Act, the result of non-presentment of the hundis for payment was not the exemption of the acceptor from liability, but the exemption of other parties to the hundis. We have to see how far this contention is correct.

3. A large number of cases have been cited before us, but before I proceed to examine the cases it will be useful to examine the provision of the law itself.

4. Chapter 5, Negotiable Instruments Act, deals with presentment. This chapter consists of 17 sections Ss, 61 to 77. Out of these sections there are some which lay down that the instruments should be presented for certain purposes and also lay down the consequences of She failure to make the presentment. In the scheme of the Indian Act, an attempt has been made to bring together the law on promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. This has caused a certain amount of confusion. Sections 62, 64, 67, 68 and 69 deal with promissory notes. Sections 6.1, 64, 68 and 69 deal with bills of exchange. Sections 6l, 68, 72 and 73 deal with cheques. It will be noticed that the sections mentioned above provide certain consequences for non-compliance with the rule as to presentment. The other sections simply lay down how a presentment is to be made, and where it has to be made and where it need not be made at all. As a general principle it must be accepted that where consequences are provided for as flowing from non-presentment, it is not open to the Courts to hold that besides the consequences provided for, by the law, other consequences, not mentioned by the law, are also to flow.

5. With this general proposition in view let us proceed to examine the several sections of Chap. 5. Section 61 deals with bills of exchange payable after sight. It provides that where, in the case of a bill of exchange of this nature, no time or place is specified for presentment, it must be presented to the drawee for acceptance. Then it provides that in case of default of such presentment, no party thereto shall be liable on it, to the person making such default. It will be noticed that this section provides for presentment in certain cases, and it also provides for the consequence. The consequence is put down in very wide terms, namely no party, whoever he may be, to the bill of exchange is to be liable to the person making the default. Section 62 deals with a promissory note payable at a certain period after sight. It again provides for presentment and further provides that in default of such presentment no party thereto will be liable to the person making the default. The words "no party" are of very wide significance.

6. We can leave aside Section 63 which only provides for grant of time for deliberation. Coming to Section 64 we find that it provides that promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques must be presented for payment. It provides that a promissory note must be presented for payment to the maker, bills of