Manherlal C. Shah And Anr. vs Hatimbhai Abbasbhai Saifee
2003 Latest Caselaw 131 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.K. Deshmukh, J.

1. The plaintiff have filed this suit on the basis of document at Exhs. 'A' and 'B' both dated 9th December, 1999. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is the drawer of these documents which the plaintiffs claim to be the bills of exchange. The drawee of these bills of exchange is one Mr. Mitesh S. Shah, when the bills of exchange were presented to the drawer he refused to accept. Therefore, the bills of exchange were dishonoured. The drawer was called upon to make the payment. Hence this suit is instituted.

2. According to the defendant, the document at Exhs. 'A' and 'B' are the fabricated documents. However, it is pertinent to note that the defendant admits his signature on the documents at Exhs. 'A' and 'B'. There is no explanation to be found in the reply as to how the plaintiffs came into possession of the said bills of exchange signed by the defendant. The defendant has stated in paragraph 11 of his reply.

"I say that the Plaintiffs have come across the papers with my signature way back in the year, 1986 or prior thereto and have filled up and fabricated the same as the said bills of exchange dated 9.12.1999."

In my opinion, in order to claim that the plaintiffs had in their possession the bills of exchange signed by the defendant, the defendant has to explain as to how the plaintiffs came into possession of such signed blank documents. In absence of any such explanation, in my opinion, the case put up by the defendant that the documents are fabricated can not be accepted. It is further pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have categorically stated that for execution of the documents the defendant had come to their office in Bombay and that the documents were executed in the presence of a broker whose name is also disclosed in the said documents itself. The plaintiffs are the businessmen carrying on business in Bombay. Perusal of the reply shows that it is not the case of the defendant that he was not in Bombay on that particular day or that he did not go to, the office of the plaintiffs on that particular day. It is pertinent to note here that in the reply it is the case of the defendant that he does not know the broker. It is further to be seen here that in the demand notice dated 20th September, 2000 the plaintiffs have stated that the bills of exchange were drawn on Mitesh S. Shah who refused to accept the same. The defendant by letter dated 23rd October, 2000 asked for zerox copies of the bills of exchange also from Mitesh S. Shah. The defence of the defendant in the reply is that he also does not know Mr. Mitesh Shah.

3. Taking overall view of the matter, it appears that the attempt of the defendant is to deny the entire transaction. In my opinion, it is not possible to believe, in the absence of any explanation, as to how the plaintiffs came into possession of the signed blank bills of exchange. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the defence put up by the defendant has any substance. There is no other defence put up by the defendant.

4. In the result, summons for judgment is granted.

5. Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses of the suit. Refund of Court fees as per rules. C.C. expedited.