Cheques and injunctive relief: plaint rejected where relief would obstruct Section 138 proceedings and statutory presumptions applied.

A plaint seeking declaration, cancellation of cheques and injunction was held liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where the cheques had been issued by the plaintiff and carried the statutory presumptions of consideration and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The declaration claim was treated as ineffective because the cheques had already been acted upon and formed the basis of criminal proceedings under Section 138. Injunctive relief was also found impermissible because it would restrain prosecution of pending criminal proceedings, which is barred by Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was viewed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint seeking declaration, cancellation of the cheques, and injunction could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of maintainability and for being barred by law.

Analysis: The cheques were admittedly issued by the plaintiff and were negotiable instruments. The defendant, as holder, was entitled to the statutory benefits flowing from the instrument, including the presumptions under the Negotiable Instrument Act that consideration and liability existed. The relief of declaration was found to be without practical effect because the cheques had already been acted upon and had formed the basis of criminal proceedings under Section 138. The injunction sought was also impermissible because its effect would be to restrain the defendant from prosecuting pending criminal proceedings, which is barred by Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was treated as an attempt to raise a defence in the criminal case and as an abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to rejection and the application for rejection succeeded.

---