Limitation for dishonoured cheque claims runs from dishonour, and secondary evidence needs a proper foundation for lost instruments.

In a suit for recovery on a dishonoured cheque issued towards an existing debt, limitation was stated to run from the date of dishonour because the right to sue arises only then, not on the cheque date; Article 113 of the Limitation Act and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act were relied on to reject the contrary argument. For secondary evidence of a lost negotiable instrument, the Court applied the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act and required a proper foundation explaining non-production of the original; on the pleaded facts, the loss and non-possession were held sufficiently accounted for, so the objection was not fatal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for a suit based on a dishonoured cheque commenced from the date of the cheque or from the date of dishonour; (ii) whether the plaintiff satisfied the foundational requirements for adducing secondary evidence in a suit on a lost negotiable instrument.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for a suit based on a dishonoured cheque commenced from the date of the cheque or from the date of dishonour

Analysis: The suit was treated as one for recovery founded on a cheque issued towards an existing debt. The Court applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and held that in such a case the right to sue arises only when the cheque is dishonoured, not merely on the date of the cheque. The Court also considered the statutory character of a cheque under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the evidentiary presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of that Act while rejecting the argument that limitation had to be reckoned from the cheque date.

Conclusion: Limitation commenced from the date of dishonour, and the suit was within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff satisfied the foundational requirements for adducing secondary evidence in a suit on a lost negotiable instrument

Analysis: The Court referred to Order VII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the requirements under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It held that secondary evidence can be admitted only when the non-production of the original is properly accounted for and a factual foundation is laid. On the facts pleaded and proved, the Court found that the loss and non-possession of the original cheque were sufficiently explained for the purpose of sustaining the suit, and the objection to secondary evidence was not accepted as fatal.

Conclusion: The foundational requirements for adducing secondary evidence were satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the limitation and evidence issues, and the decree in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for recovery based on a dishonoured cheque, limitation runs from the date of dishonour, and secondary evidence of a lost negotiable instrument is admissible only when the non-production of the original is satisfactorily explained and a proper foundational basis is laid.

---