Bar on civil suit to block cheque remedies upheld; plaint for return of blank cheques was rejected.

A plaint seeking return of blank cheques and an injunction against their encashment was held to be barred by law where the dispute arose from a loan transaction, part repayment had been made, and a decree already existed in the connected commercial suit for the outstanding amount. The Court applied the principle that a civil suit cannot be framed to frustrate remedies available in law, including prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It found that any grievance about the cheques could be pursued in appropriate proceedings and could not justify a suit intended to neutralize statutory remedies. The plaint was therefore rejected on the ground of bar by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint seeking return of blank cheques and injunction against their encashment was liable to be rejected as barred by law in the revision under Article 227.

Analysis: The pleadings disclosed that the dispute arose out of a loan transaction, the respondents had availed the loan and made part repayment, and the petitioner had already obtained a decree in the connected commercial suit for the outstanding amount. The reliefs sought in the suit were examined against the settled principle that a litigant cannot frame a suit in a manner that would frustrate the other party from pursuing remedies available in law, including prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court found that the grievance regarding the cheques, even if accepted, could be agitated in appropriate proceedings and could not justify a civil suit seeking to neutralize statutory remedies. The plaint was therefore treated as one whose reliefs were barred by law and liable to rejection.

Conclusion: The plaint was held liable to be rejected and the revision was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

---