As the endorsement in question is not a part of the negotiable instrument, any alteration in the said endorsement does not attract the penal provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, even if the entire case of the defendant about the endorsement of the pronote is true, the same does not, in any way, render the pronote (Ex. D-1) void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of Shri Swamy that the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed on account of the alleged material alteration of the endorsement on the back side of the pronote Ex. D-1.
id: 3a06144fa958145131605d7df1f724d9 - page: 119
6. The learned Civil Judge, after assessing the evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the defendant has failed to prove the discharge pleaded by him to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. That finding is not liable for interference in this second appeal. 7. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. * * * * M/s. Tailors Priya v. M/s. Gulabchand Danraj AIR 1963 Cal. 36
id: a7e10495b936330dc45656d5454ebe38 - page: 119
R.S. BACHAWAT, J. On August 30, 1961, the plaintiff instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming a decree on a dishonoured cheque dated 29th July, 1961 drawn by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or order. The cheque is crossed generally and is marked with the words a/c payee only. Those words are written within the transverse lines of the crossing. The writ of summons in the prescribed form was served on the defendant on September 19. On September 25, the defendant filed a petition praying for extension of the time to make an application for leave to appear and to defend the suit. The Registrar rejected the petition on September 28. On October 6, the defendant filed another petition asking for leave to appear and to defend the suit. By an order dated October 7, 1961 the Judge dismissed this petition. The defendant has moved this Court in revision against this order and has obtained a rule. The revision case has
id: e23a4e39f641a199218b3c5baa3f7147 - page: 120
1 proviso (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules.
id: fe2a16899119fabf4301e0c5b3f3fbe3 - page: 120