Dishonoured cheque recovery claims accrue on dishonour and fall under the residuary limitation period, enabling supervisory correction

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction remains available to correct an illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction, even where an appellate remedy may also exist. In a suit for recovery based on dishonoured cheques, the right to sue accrues on dishonour, and the claim is not governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act; where no specific article applies, the residuary Article 113 governs and the suit was within time. The rejection of the plaint as time-barred was therefore unsustainable, and rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional court could decline interference merely because an appeal might also lie, and whether Article 227 could still be invoked to correct an illegal order; (ii) whether a suit based on dishonoured cheques for recovery of money was governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act or by the residuary Article 113.

Issue (i): whether the revisional court could decline interference merely because an appeal might also lie, and whether Article 227 could still be invoked to correct an illegal order.

Analysis: The order rejecting the plaint was challenged after the revision had remained pending for a considerable time. The Court held that while revisional jurisdiction is restricted where an appeal lies, that technical limitation does not oust the constitutional supervisory power under Article 227. Where the subordinate court has acted on an erroneous view and has refused to exercise jurisdiction, the High Court can intervene to prevent injustice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection to interference was rejected and the impugned order was liable to be corrected in supervisory jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether a suit based on dishonoured cheques for recovery of money was governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act or by the residuary Article 113.

Analysis: The plaint disclosed a claim for recovery founded on cheques issued towards repayment and dishonoured by the bank. On that pleading, the cause of action arose when the cheques were dishonoured, and the suit was not one governed by Article 19. Since no other specific article covered the claim, the residuary Article 113 applied, giving three years from the date when the right to sue accrued. Computed from the dates of dishonour, the suit was within time.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation and the order rejecting the plaint as time-barred was ; the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d).

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint was quashed, the suit was restored, and the trial court was directed to decide it on merits after treating the claim as within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit founded on dishonoured cheques, the right to sue accrues on dishonour and, absent a specific article, limitation is governed by the residuary provision; a subordinate court's erroneous refusal to entertain such a suit can be corrected in Article 227 jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

---