Pandian Gowtham v. Ashok @ Giovindadas,

O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 2022, dated 06.08.2022.

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial court in O.S.No.59 of 2022. The suit has been filed for recovery of money for the amounts due to the petitioner. Insofar as the dishonoured cheques are concerned, the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. It is the further case of the petitioner that these cheques have to be presented before the concerned Magistrate Court in connection with the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2022, inasmuch as the observation of the trial Court that the petitioner cannot maintain two proceedings simultaneously. The reasonings of the trial Court in the impugned fair and decreetal order reads as under:-

10.thjp jug;gpy; tHf;Fiua[ld; mry; fhBrhiy cs;spl;l vl;L MtzA;fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. ne;j fhBrhiyapd; cs;spl;l thjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s MtzA;fspd; cz;ikj;jd;ik Fwpj;J kWj;Bjh Vw;Bwh gpujpthjp jug;gpy; vjpu;tHf;Fiua[k;. vjpUiua[k; nd;Dk; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy. BkYk;. nBj fhBrhiyf;fhf Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; fhBrhiy Bkhrof;fhd Fw;w tHf;F bjhlu;e;jpUg;gjhf thjp jug;gpy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. mt;tHf;fpw;F ne;j cupikapay; tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s MtzA;fs;

Bjitg;gLbjdpy;

cupikapay; eilKiwr;rl;lk; fl;lis 13 tpjp 10 -d; fPH; me;ePjpkd;wkhdJ ne;j MtzA;fis tutiHj;Jf; bfhs;s naYk;. BkYk;, xBu fhBrhiyf;fhf cupikapay; tHf;Fk;, Fw;wtpay; tHf;Fk; bjhlu;e;jpUg;gjhf thjp jug;gpy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ Vw;Wf;bfhs;sj;jf;fjhf ny;iy. Fw;wtpay; tHf;F bjhlu;e;jjw;fhd vt;tpj MtzKk; thjp jug;gpy; nk;kDtpy; jhf;fy; ny;iy. BkYk;, thjp jug;gpy; tHf;Fiua[ld; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s MtzA;fs; nt;tHf;fpy; FwpaPL bra;ag;glhj epiyapYk;, ne;j MtzA;fis tHf;F tprhuizapd;BghJ kPz;Lk; xg;gilj;jjhf thjp jug;gpy; vt;tpj cWjpbkhHp ny;yhj epiyapYk; vt;tpj Kfhe;jpuKk; nd;wp thjpahy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s kDthdJ Vw;Wf;bfhs;sj;jf;fjy;y vd jPu;khdpj;J js;Sgo bra;ag;gl Btz;oaJ ePjpapd; eyDf;F cfe;jJ MFk;.

3.In my view, the above reasonings of the trial Court is erroneous, inasmuch as the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is concerned, is primarily intended to punish a person, who has drawn a cheque and dishonoured it. It is a quasi judicial proceeding. Whereas, a suit is filed as a civil remedy to recover the amount due on the dishonoured cheque by filing a suit under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code. The issues also covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in D.Purushotama Reddy and another Vs. K.Sateesh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 505 and the relevant portion from the above judgement reads as under: "14.Evidently, a duty has been cast upon the civil courts to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation in terms of Section 357 of the Code. It is futile to urge that on the date on which the civil court passed the decree the appellants were not convicted. As noticed hereinbefore, the appeal is a continuation of the suit and in that view of the matter as the appellants had in total deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- I.e Rs.2,10,000/- in the criminal proceeding and Rs.1,90,000/- in the civil proceedings, out of which a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent, the High Court was obligated to take the same into consideration. In other words, having regard to the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the Code, a duty was cast upon the High Court to take into account the fact that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had already been paid by the appellants to the respondent. Concededly, both the proceedings were maintainable. Law recognizes the same. Parliament must have the situation of this nature in mind while enacting clause (b) of sub-section

(1) of Section 357 of the Code and sub section

(5) thereof."

4.In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No. 59 of 2022 is set aside and the application filed for return of documents is allowed. The petitioner shall however re-present the cheques after disposal of the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, before the trial Court. The following documents are to be returned to the petitioner. ●Original Cheque bearing No.000054 dated 12.03.2022 ●Original return memo given by the bank, dated 16.03.2022 ●Copy of notice issued by the plaintiff lawyer to the defendant, dated 04.04.2022 ●Original Postal receipts two in numbers, dated 04.04.2022 and ●Original acknowledgment cards two in numbers, dated

05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022.

¶5This Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

23.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vrn To

1.The Subordinate Court, Aranthangi

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

vrn

23.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Pandi Kowtham ... Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. Ashok @ Govindadoss ...Respondent/Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Sub Court, Aranthangi in I.A.No.333 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh For Respondent : No appearance