THADANI, C. J. This is a First Appeal from the judgment & decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cachar, dated 30-9-48, by which he de­creed the suit with costs against one Sudhir Ch. Datta impleaded as the fourth deft, in the suit, but dismissed the suit with costs against the re­maining defts. (2) The plff, the Silchar Bank Ltd., brought a suit against (1) The Pioneer Bank Ltd., (2) D. N. Bhattacharjee, (3) P. K. Das, (4) Sudhir Ch. Datta, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6380/- in the following circumstances: (3) On 20-3-1945, deft. 2 drew a cheque, being cheque No. 51448, on deft. 1 in favour of deft. 4. The following day, 21-3-1945, deft. 4 presented the cheque for payment to deft. 1. Deft. 1 endorsed the cheque stating that the cheque would be honoured after payment of the bill for the supply order No. LP 763 745/877, dated 28-2-1945, was re­ceived from the Deputy Director of Supply (Pro­curement). Deft 4 thereupon negotiated the cheque so endorsed with the pltf. bank & received the full amount of the cheque. On 11-4-1945, the plff. bank presented the cheque to deft. 1 Bank, which returned the cheque stating "We again re­fer to the previous Memo, dated 21-3-1945". The plff. bank again presented the cheque on 26-5-1945, but deft. 1 dishonoured the cheque stating that the payment had been stopped by the drawer. (4) It is not necessary to refer to the defence of deft. 1 bank, as the plff. bank has withdrawn the suit against it. Deft. 3 denied that he was acting in collusion with deft. 1. Deft. 2 admitted that he drew the cheque in favour of deft. 4 & also admitted having stopped payment, taut alleg­ed that he stopped payment at the instance of deft. 5 who was subsequently made a party. He denied that the plff. bank was a holder-in-due-course. Deft. 4 supported the plff.'s case. (5) Upon the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Is the suit bad for defect of parties? 3. Did defts. 1 & 3 guarantee payment of che­que No. 51448, as alleged in the plaint? 4. Are any of the defts. liable to the plff? If so, for what amount? 5. To what relief, if any, is the plff. entitled? Additional issues: - 6. 2. Is the suit bad for defect of parties? 3. Did defts. 1 & 3 guarantee payment of che­que No. 51448, as alleged in the plaint? 4. Are any of the defts. liable to the plff? If so, for what amount? 5. To what relief, if any, is the plff. entitled? Additional issues: - 6. Is the suit barred by limitation? 7. Did deft. 1 make any representation certify­ing cheque No. 51448, & did the plff. become holder-in-due-course of the said cheque? 8. Did the representation constitute marking of cheque? (6) Mr. Ghose for the appellant, besides giving up the claim against deft. 1 it having gone into liquidation, has not pressed the claim against defts. 3 & 5. Against deft. 4 the Trial Court has already passed a decree. The only question which remains for our consideration is whether - deft, 2 the drawer of the cheque, is also liable to the olff bank. (7) Mr. Datta for deft. 2 has contended that the claim against deft. 2 is unsustainable in view of the judgment of the 'Calcutta High Court', it a case which came up before it in 'First Appeal No. 217 of 1946,' in which deft. 1 had instituted an inter-pleader suit against the plff. bank & deft 2 in the present suit. The contention was negatived by the Trial Court under issue No. 1. Manifestly, in the inter-pleader suit, the question of the liability of deft. 2 as drawer of the cheque m not in issue. The question of the liability o deft 2 as drawer of the cheque in relation to the plff. bank has arisen for the first time in the present suit & is to be decided in accordance will the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (8) It is not denied that deft. 2 is the drawer of the cheque. His liability is denied on the allegation that the plff. bank is not a holder-in-dire course. It is true, the Trial Court has stated in the judgment that the plff. bank is not a holder in-due-course. But the finding is clearly erroneous for the short reason that it has decreed the claim of the plff. bank against deft. 4 a decree against which no appeal has been preferred by deft. 4. Moreover, on the evidence of the Seoretary of the plff. bank, which we accept, there is no doubt that the plff. But the finding is clearly erroneous for the short reason that it has decreed the claim of the plff. bank against deft. 4 a decree against which no appeal has been preferred by deft. 4. Moreover, on the evidence of the Seoretary of the plff. bank, which we accept, there is no doubt that the plff. bank is a holder-in-due course. (9) Mr. Datta for deft. 2, however, contended that assuming that the plff. bank paid the amount of the cheque to deft. 4 the plff. bank became the possessor of the cheque after the cheque had been endorsed by deft. 1 bank - an endorsement which, according to Mr. Datta, amounts in la1 to dishonour, & the possession of the cheque by the plff. bank was not the possession of a holder in-due-course. In support of his contention, Mr. Datta relied upon S. 92 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But, in the language of S. 92 of the N. I. Act, a cheque is dishonoured only when the drawer of the cheque makes default in payment 'on being duly required to pay the sum.' In the present case, when the cheque was first presented on 21-3-45 by deft. 4 deft. 1 bank did not say that it would not make payment; on the contrary, it said that it would make payment; after it had received the amount from the Deputy Director, Supply. It was only on 26-5-1945, that for the first time deft. 1 bank declined to pay the amount on the ground that the drawer had stopped payment. The plff. bank had already become the holder-in-due-course of the cheque on 21-3-45 are deft. 1 bank had endorsed the cheque to the effect that it would make payment on collection of the assets of the drawer. (10) Mr. Datta next contended that there was only a qualified acceptance by deft. 1 within the meaning of S. 86, Negotiable Instruments Act S. 86 has no application to a cheque; it applies only to a bill of exchange. It is true that a cheque is a bill of exchange, but it is a bill of exchange to be drawn on a specified banker, & not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand. From the contents of Chap. It is true that a cheque is a bill of exchange, but it is a bill of exchange to be drawn on a specified banker, & not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand. From the contents of Chap. VII of the Negotiable 1 instruments Act, which deals with the subject of discharge from liability on notes, bills & cheque it is clear that the terms of S. 86 are confined in their application to bills of exchange, & have no application to cheques. Indeed there is no such thing as an acceptance of a cheque. (11) Their Lordships of the Privy Council in. 'The Bank of Baroda Ltd. v. the Punjab National Bank Ltd,' 48 C, W. N. 810 have observed: "Marking or certification of a cheque by the drawee bank does not constitute acceptance within the meaning of S. 7, Negotiable Instruments Act, or the English Bills of Exchange Act or the common law so as to make such bank liable to the drawer or holder by reason of such marking or certification........."Cheques are not the pro­per subject of acceptance or at least a cheque is (not intended to be accepted & there is no known .Instance in England or in India of a cheque being accepted by a banker for the purpose of making himself liable to the drawer or holder or a banker being held liable or even sued as the acceptor of a cheque drawn upon him." (12) The liability of the drawer of a cheque is governed by S. 30, Negotiable Instruments Act, which is in these terms: "The drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque is bound, in case of dishonour by the drawee or ac­ceptor thereof, to compensate the holder provid­ed due notice of dishonour has been given to, or received by, the drawer as hereinafter provided." In this case, the drawee bank, deft. 1 dishonour­ed the cheque after the drawer, deft. 2, had stopp­ed payment. The question, therefore, of the notice of dishonour does not arise. The drawer is liable to compensate the holder, namely, the plfl. bank. (13) The result is that, in addition to a decree passed by the Trial Court against deft. 4, there will be a decree against deft. 2 with costs through­out. The claim against deft. 1 has been given up. The suit against deft. 1, is dismissed with no order as to costs. bank. (13) The result is that, in addition to a decree passed by the Trial Court against deft. 4, there will be a decree against deft. 2 with costs through­out. The claim against deft. 1 has been given up. The suit against deft. 1, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Defts. 3 & 4 are not parties to the cheque. The claim against them is dismissed wJth no order as to costs. (14) The appeal is allowed to the extent indi­cated. (15) RAM LABHAYA J.: I agree. K.S. Appeal allowed.