J U D G M E N T

The suit for money under a dishonoured cheque, was dismissed by the Court. The plaintiff is in appeal. 2. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant were employed in Saudi Arabia and were friends. In March 1995, the first defendant borrowed an amount of ` 5,50,000/- from the plaintiff. The amount was agreed to be repaid in three months. The same was not repaid. While they were at the native place, the first defendant issued a post dated cheque dated 02.11.1996 for ` 5,50,000/-. The cheque was issued as security and was to be returned when the amount is paid. However, the amount was not paid. The cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured. Thereupon, the suit is filed.

3. The defendant, though denied the plaintiff's claim admitted that, in March, 1995 an amount of ` 50,000/- was borrowed from the plaintiff. He contended that, as security for the said amount a blank signed cheque was issued. The cheque was unauthorisedly filled up by the plaintiff. The cheque is not an enforceable instrument. Contending thus, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial court found that the court lacks territoria