:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1588 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO.1588 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO.1588 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT N0. 966 OF 2006 N0. 966 OF 2006 N0. 966 OF 2006 Smt. Chhaya C. Ghone. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Shri Kailash Dashrath Borhade. ... Defendant. .... Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Plaintiff. Mr. C.S. Balsara with Ms. Yogini Gada i/b. M/s. Harakhchand & Co. for the Defendant. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE DATE DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2007. : 9TH FEBRUARY 2007. : 9TH FEBRUARY 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The suit is filed on a promissory note dated 1.7.2003 drawn by the Defendant showing the consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- which is presumed to have passed to the Defendant. The promissory note was an inchoate document at the time of filing the suit. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff on the footing that the consideration passed from her. The name of the payee has been inserted in the document after the filing of the suit. This is reflected in the Xerox copy of the promissory note given by the Plaintiff’s Advocate to the Defendant’s Advocate at the time of inspection. :2: 2. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument transferable by mere delivery. It can therefore be an inchoate document which can be filled up at a later date. Such particulars may be the date of the promissory note, the payee of the promissory note, etc. The document relied upon by the Plaintiff and inspected by the Defendants was an inchoate document. However, it showed the extent of the consideration that passed under it and the name and signature of the drawer. Hence, both the aspects for fixing liability under the instrument were on the promissory note as on the date of the suit. 3. It is the Plaintiff’s contention that mistakenly the name of the payee, which was the Plaintiff, and the amount in figures was not shown on the instrument. The date and the amount in words was shown on the instrument. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to substitute and annex the completed instrument showing the Plaintiff as the payee. Since the suit has already been filed in the name of the Plaintiff, the name of the Plaintiff inserted in the promissory note becomes a ministerial addition and not a fraudulent interpolation. The inchoate document which has later been completed is the document now relied upon by the Plaintiff in whose favour the cause of action has been made out in the plaint itself. :3: 4. It is contended on behalf of the Defendant that since the promissory note is shown to be dated 1.7.2003, the period of limitation would expire on 30.6.2006 and this Chamber Summons having been taken out in November 2006 for relying upon the completed document, the Plaintiffs cause of action will be barred by law of limitation. That contention is incorrect since the completion in the documents as to the name of the payee and the amount of consideration in words do not change the cause of action. The suit is already filed by the Plaintiff who is the payee of the instrument. In any case, the amendment relates back to the date of the suit. Hence, the following order :- (i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) Plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the plaint as well as in the copy of the plaint served upon the Defendant within two weeks. No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN (SMT.ROSHAN (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J.) DALVI,J.) DALVI,J.)