Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Suneel Dattatraya Mogre, filed a Commercial Summary Suit against the defendant, Prabhakar Baburao Thorat, seeking a decree for Rs.2,25,00,000/- based on a dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff and defendant were both advocates who had business dealings between 2006 and 2012. The plaintiff alleged that on 3rd February 2021, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.2,25,00,000/- as consideration. When the plaintiff deposited the cheque on 27th April 2021, he noticed that the amount in figures was Rs.2,25,000/- instead of Rs.2,25,00,000/-, but the amount in words was correctly stated as Rs.2,25,00,000/-. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff filed a summary suit and a summons for judgment. The defendant sought leave to defend, arguing that the cheque was materially altered and that there was no consideration. The court examined the cheque and found a clear discrepancy between the figures and words. The plaintiff could not explain how the discrepancy occurred. The court held that the cheque was materially altered under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and therefore void against the defendant. The court also noted that the plaintiff's claim of a loan of Rs.2,25,00,000/- was not supported by any documentary evidence and that the plaintiff had not filed any complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court dismissed the suit with costs, finding that the plaintiff had not made out a case for a decree.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Material Alteration - Section 87 - Discrepancy between figures and words - A cheque where the amount in figures is Rs.2,25,000/- but the amount in words is Rs.2,25,00,000/- is materially altered on its face. The plaintiff failed to explain the alteration. Held that the cheque is void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the plaintiff cannot recover on it. (Paras 1-28) B) Civil Procedure Code - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII Rule 2 - Leave to defend - In a summary suit, if the cheque is materially altered, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. The court found that the plaintiff's case was not credible and dismissed the suit. (Paras 1-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a cheque with a discrepancy between the amount in figures (Rs.2,25,000/-) and the amount in words (Rs.2,25,00,000/-) is materially altered and therefore void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in a summary suit based on such a cheque.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Commercial Summary Suit No. 45 of 2022 with costs, holding that the cheque was materially altered and void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Summons for Judgment was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Material alteration of a negotiable instrument
- Section 87 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- discrepancy between amount in figures and words
- summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC
- defence of material alteration
- burden of proof on plaintiff to explain alteration
