Rup Chand vs Govind Ram

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The applicant has filed the present application for grant of leave to file the appeal against the judgment dated 12.12.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Case No. 484 of 2019 vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

As per the complainant, he had advanced a loan of ₹6,00,000/- to the accused in June 2012, and the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 767599, dated 17.04.2019, amounting to ₹6,00,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, Branch Pandoh (Mandi), H.P., to discharge his liability. Learned Trial Court held that the cheque was issued to discharge the time-barred debt, which does not constitute a legally enforceable debt/liability, and no action could be taken on such a cheque. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Social Leasing (India) Ltd. v. Rajan Kumar Kanthwal, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3131 in support of this conclusion.

Aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal has been filed asserting that the cheque constituted a promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, reviving enforceability of time-barred debts. The cheque constituted a valid promise to pay the time-barred debt, and the cheque issued to discharge the time-barred debt is enforceable. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that no complaint lies for the dishonour of a cheque issued to discharge the time-barred debt. Hence, it was prayed that the leave to appeal be granted.

The contentions raised before this Court have already been considered by this Court in Social Leasing (India) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was specifically held that the cheque issued to discharge the time-barred debt will not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was also held that the acknowledgement has to be made under Section 18 of the Limitation Act before the expiry of the limitation, and Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act does not apply to a cheque issued to discharge the time-barred debt. Therefore, the matter is squarely concluded by the judgment of this Court in Social Leasing (India) Ltd. (supra) and the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Trial Court requiring any interference from this Court.

Thus, the applicant has failed to make out any case for the grant of leave. Accordingly, the instant application fails, and it is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the application for seeking a grant of leave, the present appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable.