IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.07.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2004 & C.M.P.No.4115 of 2004 T.Thiyagarajan ..Petitioner (2nd Defendant) -vs- 1. K.R.Venugopalan 2. Sathyadevi 3. T.Mahendran 4. Renuka 5. T.Hemamalini ..Respondents (Plaintiffs) PRAYER: The above Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 13.1.2004, passed in I.A.No.21458 of 2003 in O.S.NO.9466 OF 1988. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Rajamanickam For Respondents : Mr.D.Krishnakumar-R1 O R D E R The second defendant is the petitioner herein and Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order made in I.A.No.21458 in O.S.No. 9466 of 1988 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By the impugned order, the first respondent/plaintiff was permitted to include his name in the suit Promissory Note dated 23.10.1985. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are that the respondent filed a Suit against Tmt.Sarojini and the petitioner herein for recovery of money based on a Promissory Note dated 23.10.1985. Pending the Suit, since Tmt.Sajojini died, her legal representative were brought on record, who are the respondents 2 to 5 herein. Deceased first defendant filed Written Statement contending that they had made several payments to the respondent/plaintiff by cash in respect of the borrowings in the year 1983-84, at that time, the respondent/plaintiff had taken signatures in blank Promissory Notes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and fabricating those documents has filed the Suit. During the pendency of the Suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.21458 of 2003 to permit his name to be included in the Promissory Note by stating that by mistake, the same was not filled up. 3. The respondent relied on section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and contended that he is entitled to fill up his name. The petitioner resisted the Application by stating that the Application is belated since the promissory Note is dated 23.10.1985 and the Suit came to be filed in the year 1988 and after a period of eighteen years, at the fag end of the trial of the Suit, the Application is filed and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. Further, it was contended that if the Application is allowed, it would amount to material alteration of the Promissory Note. The trial Court considered the matter and after referring to the decision of this Court, in AIR 1962 MADRAS 326 [M.P.RM IRULANDI MUDALIAR Vs. SYED IBRAHIM] relied on by the first respondent, allowed the Application. As against the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the objections raised by them before the trial Court in the counter affidavit in I.A.No.21458 of 2003. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Volume 96 LAW WEEKLY page 482 [SESHARAL BAJNA Vs. V.C.SUBRAMANIAN], in support of his contentions. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent while supporting the order passed by the trial Court, contended that in the interest of justice, the plaintiff should be entitled to insert his name and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and it would not preclude the defendants from contending that the Promissory Note is inadmissible. 7. Two questions would arise for consideration in this Revision, viz. 1. If section 20 of the N.I. Act is applicable to the case on hand, at what stage the plaintiff could be permitted to make insertion ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is permitted to insert his name in the Promissory Note and whether it would affect his case ? 8. The contention of the Revision Petitioner is solely based upon the decision of this Court in the case of SESHARAL BAJNA, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred supra. In the said case, this Court held that a Suit filed with the blanks in the Promissory Note is not maintainable and the retention of the blank Promissory Note by the plaintiff who was a professional money lender should not be permitted to be encouraged on the ground of public policy and by permitting him to fill up the blanks in the Promissory Note would amount to material alteration affecting the very contract itself and no decree can be passed on such Instrument which had no legal existence on the date of filing the Suit. 9. The Judgment in SESHARAL BAJNA came up for consideration before this Court in (2001) 3 M.L.J.753 [MALAR FINANCE CORPORATION Vs. RATHINAM]. The learned Judge, after discussing the entire gamut of case law on the subject and taking note of the order passed by this Court in the case of M.P.RM IRULANDI MUDALIAR Vs. SYED IBRAHIM, referred supra as well as other subsequent Judgments, elaborately discussed the ambit of section 20 of the Act and held that in view of the earlier decisions, the decision in SESHARAL BAJNA stands impliedly overruled. 10. For better appreciation, relevant portions of the Judgment is extracted hereunder: "34. I have already referred to the observation of Fletcher Moulton, J. in Glenie v. Bruce Smith, (1908) 1 K.B.. 263: 98 L.T.515, that parties very often vary the logical order of those operations relating to execution of negotiable instrument and that Sec.20 of the Bills of Exchange Act, corresponding to Sec.20 of our Negotiable Instruments Act, is intended to deal with those cases. The payee before seeking to recover, on the document should have the instrument complete in all respects, that would enable him either to negotiate further or to file a suit as plaintiff. There is a noticeable difference between English Law and Indian Law with regard to Sec.20. English Law requires that the blanks must be filled up within a reasonable time, which for this purpose is a question of fact. Sec.20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not stipulate any such time limit. 35. The decision of Venkatarama Iyer, J., in Abmed Ibrahim v. Ramadas, A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 532, in my view, lays down the correct position of law. When an incomplete instrument is signed by A and delivered to B, that clothes the latter with prima facie authority to complete it and if in execution of that authority the instrument is completed. A will be liable on it to a holder in due course. But where that authority comes to an end before the instrument is completed, then Sec.20 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ becomes inapplicable and no rights can be based on the instrument if it is completed thereafter, except by a holder in due course. The decision of V.Balasubramanyan, J. in Ramiah Thevar v. Balasundaram, (1982)1 M.L.J.431: 95 L.W. 329 must be deemed to have been impliedly overruled by the Bench in Sesharal Bafna v.Subramanian, A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 1983 Mad. 368 and the decision of Hadi, J. in Kadarkarai Reddiar v. Arumugam Nadar, A.I.R. 1992 Mad. 346 following V.Balasubramanyan, J. in Ramiah Thevar's case cannot be stated to lay down the correct law." Therefore the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of the SESHARAL BAJNA does not merit acceptance. 11. Let us take the second question first. The second question which arose for consideration in the present matter has to be answered against the petitioner as it cannot be stated that by permitting the plaintiff to, fill up his name in the Promissory Note, the defendants right would be affected. As held by the decision rendered supra, justice requires that the plaintiff should be allowed to fill up the name in the Promissory Note and merely because the name is filled up, it would not in any manner affect the defendants rights to raise a contention that the Promissory Note is inadmissible for any of the circumstances of the case or to show that the plaintiff had no authority. 12. The first question namely if section 20 of the Act is held to be applicable to the case on hand, at what stage the plaintiff could be permitted to fill up the blank in the Promissory Note. The case of the defendants is that because of the delay, the defendants are put to disadvantage and it is barred by limitation and amounts to material alteration. This issue was also considered in the case of MALAR FINANCE CORPORATION, as referred above. By relying upon the decision of Fletcher Moulton, J. in Glenie v. Bruce Smith, this Court held that there is a noticeable difference between the English Law and the Indian Law with regard to Section 20 of the Act. English Law requires that the blanks must be filled up within a reasonable time, which for this purpose is a question of fact. Sec.20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not stipulate any such time limit. Therefore, the first question also has to be answered against the petitioner. 13. In the result, the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly legal and valid and accordingly the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed. It is needless to state that merely because the plaintiff has been permitted to fill up his name in the Suit Promissory Note, it would not preclude the defendants from raising the contention that the Suit Promissory Note is inadmissible in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence or that there were circumstances in the case to show that the plaintiff had no authority. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar rpa To The VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Advocate. S.R.No.54235. C.R.P.(PD)No.375 of 2004 MBS (CO) GSK 10.08.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/