DORABJI NOWROSJEE PAJNIGAR Vs. JAMSHEDJI PESTONJI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit upon a promissory note dated May 11, 1932, to recover the sum of Rs. 5,000 and interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem. The promissory note has been put in as exhibit A. It contains the following provision : " money to be payable at Poona, Bombay, or elsewhere." The note was endorsed by the present plaintiff to-Messrs. Juharmal Jivraj & Co., but was subsequently endorsed back by them to the plaintiff, and notice of that fact was given by Messrs. Juharmal Jivraj & Co. to the defendant. These facts appear from documents containing exhibit No. 1, which were put in by consent.

(2.) The only material part of the written statement is the first paragraph in which the defendant submits that the promissory note in suit not having been presented for payment, the suit is not maintainable; and the only issue raised is whether the suit is maintainable having regard to the fact that the promissory note in suit has not been presented for payment to the defendant. The question for decision in this case is whether on the wording of this promissory note, presentment for payment was required in law. It is not alleged in the plaint that any presentment for payment was in fact made.

(3.) The question turns upon Section 69 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act, which is in these terms:- A promissory note or bill of exchange made, drawn or accepted payable at a specified place must, in order to charge the maker or drawer thereof, be presented for payment at that place.