Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. With respect to the application filed under Section 151 of CPC, it was submitted on behalf of the defendants that after passing of the aforesaid judgment by the Division Bench on 15.6.2007 by which the exparte ad interim injunction order dated 28.3.2007 passed on IA No. 3582/2007 was vacated, the defendants presented the cheques, subject matter of the suit, for clearance. Upon presentation, the said cheques were returned dishonoured by the drawee bank with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer", as a result of which the defendant No. 1 sent a statutory legal notice to the plaintiff and initiated proceedings against it under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are pending. It was therefore submitted that in view of the subsequent developments as stated above, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the prayers made in the suit have been rendered infructuous, and that it is imperative in the interest of justice that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed as infructuous.

11. In his rejoinder, Senior counsel for the defendants submitted that since the original cheques are no longer in the possession of the defendants, but have been filed in the criminal court in the proceedings initiated by them against the plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relief of mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff against the defendants directing them to deposit the said cheques in this Hon'ble Court, as prayed for in prayer (b) is rendered infructuous. With regard to prayer (c) wherein the plaintiff has sought a decree of mandatory injunction cancelling the said cheques on the transfer of shares by the plaintiff to the defendant(s), it was contended that once the said cheques were presented for clearance and were dishonoured, they had exhausted themselves, and because a period of 6 months had already expired from the date of their issue, the cheques were no longer valid. It was emphasized on behalf of the defendants that, contrary to the plaintiff's contention that prayer (b) and (c) were not hit by the bar under the provisions of Section 41(b) and (d) of the Act, the relief sought by way of the said prayers was consequential in nature, to the relief sought under prayer (a) and if allowed, in effect, would amount to restraining the defendants from instituting or prosecuting any civil proceedings or any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, and for the said reason also, the plaint is liable to be rejected as a whole.

15. Insofar as the reliefs prayed for in prayers (b) & (d) of the plaint are concerned, it was vehemently urged by the counsel for the defendants that both the reliefs being consequential in nature to the relief sought in prayer (a), had also been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that after the stay was vacated, the cheques had already been presented and upon being dishonoured, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated by the defendants which are pending before the competent court. It was thus contended that the suit itself had been rendered infructuous as there was no question of directing the defendants to deposit the cheques in the Court, the same being on the record in the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Similarly, there was no question of cancelling the cheques which had in any case become invalid during the pendency of the present proceedings. In the subsequent application filed by the defendants, emphasis has been laid on this facet of the case to state that the entire suit instituted by the plaintiff has itself been rendered infructuous as none of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint could be granted in favor of the plaintiff.

2. Whether the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in prayer (c) of the plaint is rendered infructuous in view of the fact that all the 16 cheques issued by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant No. 1 are no longer valid instruments