P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff in o. S. 346/72 on the file of the Munsiff, mangalore and is directed against the divergent decrees of the Courts-below in that the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit and the Civil Judge on appeal reversing the said decree. ( 2 ) THE suit was for recovering a sum of Rs. 2350/- with costs etc. The claim was made against one of the branches of the defendant Canara Bank, at Mangalore where admittedly the plaintiff had a s. B. Account bearing No. 201 which account was in existence for quite some time. (Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant ). ( 3 ) IT is common ground that plaintiff credited to the defendant-bank a cheque for Rs. 3003-50-on 20-2-1968 for realisation and ultimately for crediting to his account. That was an outstation cheque drawn on a Bank at Bangalore and consequently it was in due course sent by defendant-Bank to one of its branches in Ganohinagar, Bangalore for collection. It is again common ground that the Gandhinagar Branch of the canara Bank at Bangalore realised the cheque amount on 24 2-68 and sent the requisite advice to the defendant on the very same day. but due to intervening public holidays the advice reached defendant-bank on 29-2-1968. The bank made an entry on 24/29-2 68 in its bocks pertaining to the realisation of the cheque in question. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile there was a development to the detriment of the defendant, in that somebody, to whom the plaintiff owned money had filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore in 0 S. 265/68 and had obtained a garnishee order on 28-2-1968 ordering the bank not to pay out to the defendant a sum of Rs. 2250/- and freezing the account of the plaintiff to that extent. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff undaunted by this prohibitory order presented a series of cheques subsequently, with a view to draw the cash reserves to his account following encashment of the cheque referred to supra. He presented one cheque for Rs. 450/- which was turned down by the bank in view of the prohibitory order of the Court. On 8-7-68 he presented another cheque which was once again turned down by the bank. He presented one cheque for Rs. 450/- which was turned down by the bank in view of the prohibitory order of the Court. On 8-7-68 he presented another cheque which was once again turned down by the bank. After a long interval of four years he presented another cheque for Rs. 250/- on 19-4-1972 and when this was turned down he filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, seeking a decree against the bank alleging wrongful denial by the bank of the facility of appropriating his own funds. That suit came to be decreed. ( 6 ) BUT the decree having stood reversed on appeal, the plaintiff assails the said decree in this appeal. ( 7 ) AT this juncture I must refer to the endeavour by the plaintiff made in combating the suit in O. S. 255/68. It was in that suit the prohibitory order referred to supra had been issued. It is not known whether any attempts were made by him to move the Court to lift that order. But what is very clear is that he lost the battle, suffered a decree in that suit, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal culminatory in a second appeal beirg preferred to this Court in R S A. No. 1399/1974. This Court granted a stay of the decree passed by learned Munsiff in OS. No. 255/1968. That stay order was also communicated but the complaint of the plaintiff is despite receipt of the stay order the Court nonetheless wont on to pursue the execution proceedings that were already afoot resulting in the freezing of money standing to the credit of the plaintiff in his s. B. Account; later the defendant-Bank being called up by the Court to deposit the money also resulted in compliance. It has transpired that subsequently the decree-holder also received the money with full satisfaction being entered in the execution case. I am to mention further that later on the plaintiff's second appeal rsa 1399/1974 came to be dismissed. ( 8 ) IN this appeal the following substantial questions of law have been raised and formulated for consideration : -1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff s suit is barred by limitation?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant- bank was obliged to deposit Rs. 2,250/- pursuant to the prohibitory order of the executing Court Ext. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff s suit is barred by limitation?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant- bank was obliged to deposit Rs. 2,250/- pursuant to the prohibitory order of the executing Court Ext. P-9 dated 30th january. 1975? ( 9 ) I shall now advert to the same. The first question presents little difficulty and in fact even Mr. Rao for the defendant in this Court does not any longer contend the plaintiff's suit was barred. ( 10 ) ). l am to notice it is the Civil judge who took the view that the plaintiff's suit was barred and he did so on the basis of what had transpired in the year 1968 wherein two of the plaintiff's cheques dated 8th April 1963 and 8th of june 19t8 had been dishonoured. The learned Civil judge thought that the suit claim when computed or reckoned with reference to dates on which the cheques referred to supra stood dishonoured, the suit filed in the year 1972 was clearly barred by time. If the learned Judge was right in computing the period of limitation tracking it back to the rejection of those two cheques in the year 1968 he was certainly justified in holding the suit to be statute barred. ( 11 ) ). But the finding as aforesaid overlooks the fact between 1968 and 1972 when the present suit came to be filed, there was money in the plaintiff's account with the bank aggregating to more than Rs. 2,259 42 All things being equal and in normal circumstances money being available to his account, there could have been little objection to plaintiff withdrawing money's to the extent to his credit in his account. 2,259 42 All things being equal and in normal circumstances money being available to his account, there could have been little objection to plaintiff withdrawing money's to the extent to his credit in his account. The fact that on an earlier occasion the Bank had rebuffed his endeavour in encashing his cheques and that was because the Bank was of the view the garnishee order served on it by the Court had freezed the account and hence found itself unable to permit the plaintiff to avail of the funds at his disposal with the Bank, was no ground to plead the claim now made as statute barred ( 12 ) WHILE undoubtedly the plaintiff could have filed the suit within three years from the date of dishonouring of the two cheques in the year 1968, but the present suit having been based according to the plaintiff on the dishonour of his later cheques in The year 1972, has action in seeking to recover on the basis of the cheque dishonoured in 1972 could not have been discarded on the ground that the claim was statute barred. The refusal to honour the earlier cheques and the refusal to honour the cheque presented in the year 1972, while it may be tor the same reason the cause of action on either occasion being different, the rejection of the cheque presented in the year 1972 pleaded as the cause of action for the instant suit could not have been treated as barred by time taking into account the rejection of the two cheques in the year 1968, because as long as there was money standing to the credit of the plaintiff with the defendant Bank, the man was entitled to draw cheques and present them for encashment. While it is true that every rejection or dishonouring of a cheque furnishes the customer with a cause of action, it would be wholly wrong to think that the plaintiff having not sued on the basis of the cheque dishonoured on the earlier occasion cannot found a cause of action on the latest rejection. As pointed oui each rejection furnishes a cause of action and one has nothing to do wish the other. As pointed oui each rejection furnishes a cause of action and one has nothing to do wish the other. The fact that the rejection on the earlier occasion had afforded the plaintiff a cause of action that had subsequently become extinguished by the statute of limitation, does not mean that he could not have sued on a subsequent cause of action. The learned Civil Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time because he had not availed the cause of action that arose immediately after two of his cheques had bounced in the year 1968. ( 13 ) THE cause of action herein is based on the cheque which was turned down in the year 1972, this filed in the year 1972 was clearly in lime and could not have been discarded on grounds of limitation and hence my finding as aforesaid on the first point. ( 14 ) THE stcond point for consideration is based on the plaintiff's case blaming the Bank or the Court as the case may be for having denuded his account by the wrong withdrawal of moneys r. 24 inspite of the say order of this Court. It seems to me there is little substance in this contention and at any rate the passage of time and the events that have so far transpired the chief of which being the disposal of the second appeal in which the plaintiff was disputing the tenability of the decree made against him in O S. No. 255/1968 that had ultimately resulted in the moneys starding to his credit to the defendant-Bank being consumated by the decree, have all lead to a weakening of this argument. ( 15 ) APART from the fact the said decree has since been affirmed by this court it would be proper to recall that the garnishee order made by the Court in o. S. No. 255/1968, had continued to be operative throughout and the stay order passed by this Court in R. S. A No 1399/ 74 had only the effect of suspending the decree of the trial Court but otherwise did not effect the garnishee order made earlier during the course of the suit. ( 16 ) WHETHER it was right on the part of the Munsiff to have called for the money from the Bank and thereafter permitted the decree-holder to take away that money is an aspect which it is not now necessary to go into, even so it is pointed out that the Munsiff who was also the executing Court does not appear to have been informed of the receipt of the stay order which may or may not be true. ( 17 ) AS pointed out earlier much of the sting in this point is lost by the fact that the Munsiff's decree has since been affirmed by this Court and that at no time any attempt was made at lifting the garnishee order which was operative throughout. ( 18 ) BUT as a fall out from this point, a question of some nicety has arisen and has been adverted to in this Court by both sides. Mr. Hande for the plaintiff maintains that on the 27th or 28th February 1968 when the prohibitory order of the court came to be communicated to the bank the state of his client's account was not of the order mentioned in the prohibitory order, but it was very much less. It is common ground that on the 28th figures referred to, in the books ot the bank, the balance to the credit of the appellant was Rs. 18. 80. It is only on the 29th when the Gandhinagar Bank's advice was received from Bangalore following the encashment of his cheque presented on the 20th February 1968, his bank balance rose to Rs 2999 65. The argument of Mr. Hande is that on the 28th of February 1968 Rs. 18. 80 only, being available to the credit of the plaintiff in the bank's account as on that day, the garnishes order would be effective only in regard to that sum and not to anything in excess. He strongly sustained this argument by pointing out to a sub sequent clarification issued by the Court as per Ext. P. 4. "case called. Sri G. K S. for Sri u. R. K prays for time. Attachment is made absolute to the extent the amount was available in the S B. Account of the deft, at the time of attachment order. Both parties to close Evi. on 16/9. P. 4. "case called. Sri G. K S. for Sri u. R. K prays for time. Attachment is made absolute to the extent the amount was available in the S B. Account of the deft, at the time of attachment order. Both parties to close Evi. on 16/9. " reliance is also placed on the evidence of the Bank Manager D W 1 stating that on the 28th of February 1968, the plaintiff would not have been allowed to draw any amount in excess of what was actually available and standing to his credit in the books of account. Basing himself on these facts he contended that the excess amount having come to the plaintiff's account only on the 29th by which time the garnishee order had already fastened on to his account, it is submitted by Mr. Hande that only the amount at his client's credit on the 28th of February could be attached and not what came into his account subsequently on the 29th. This argument is sought to be strongly buttressed by the evidence of the Bar k Manager who said, anything beyond what was actually standing to the plaintiff's credit on the 28th the Bank would not have been permitted to be drawn. The argument lead is that the plaintiff would not have drawn anything more than Rs. 18,80 on the 28th instant the garnishee order must be held to affect only that amount and nothing more because as on the 28th the plaintiff could not have called anything more than Rs. 18. 80 as his own. It is hence urged that the refusal by the Bank to encash the cheque of Rs. 2,000/- and odd subsequently was clearly improper and the bank must therefore make abundant reparation in that behalf by acceeding to the suit claim. ( 19 ) THIS argument was pressed with great vigour in the Court below but did not find favour with it although it did click with the Munsiff Sri Rao appearing for the defendant bank and his learned junior Smt. Surya Prabha, who deputized for Mr. ( 19 ) THIS argument was pressed with great vigour in the Court below but did not find favour with it although it did click with the Munsiff Sri Rao appearing for the defendant bank and his learned junior Smt. Surya Prabha, who deputized for Mr. Rao for the most part of the hearing of this appeal submitted that in law a Bank which collects money on behalf of another bank is to be treated as an agent of the former and consequently the moment a cheque sent for collection by the other bank had been realised by the latter the realisation must be treated as having accrued to the principal bank, and in this case the cheque having been realised by the Gandhinagar bank Bangalore on the 24th instant that realisation must be treated as realisation by the defendant bank itself. It is urged that in law such an assumption is possible and hence on the 24th of February itself the money realised by the out Station Bank had stood notionally transposed to the defendant bank's account and was consequently available not merely for the customer but in this case to his detriment by virtue of the garnishee order. It is therefore urged that the defendant-Bank had no option except to decline to honour the plaintiff's cheques as long as the garnishee order was in force and consequently the bark could not be faulted at all. Adverting to the duties of a banker with reference to a customer, the High court of England in the very recent case of Bhogal v Punjab National Bank (Dillon LJ) (1988 (2) All England Law reports Page : 296) has made the following enunciation : - "in the banking field there are clear rules of law. (I) It is the duty of the banker to pay within a reasonable time of presentment all cheques drawn by the customer in accordance with the mandate given to the banker provided that the banker has money in his hands belonging to the customer. As Lord cairns LC stated in Gray V Johnston (1868) LR 3 HLI at II, it would be a serious matter if bankers were to be allowed, on grounds of mere suspicion or curiosity, to refuse to honour a cheque drawn by their customer. As Lord cairns LC stated in Gray V Johnston (1868) LR 3 HLI at II, it would be a serious matter if bankers were to be allowed, on grounds of mere suspicion or curiosity, to refuse to honour a cheque drawn by their customer. XXXXXXXXX he added on the facts of that case x x x even although that customer might happen to be an administrator or an executor. (2) As scrutten LJ pointed out in Bradford Old Bank Ltd. v. Sutc/iffe (1918) 2kb 833 at 847, sums paid by a customer into his current account cannot be used by the bank in discharge of the customer's loan account without the consent of the customer, since no customer could otherwise have any security in drawing a cheque on his current account if he had a loan account greater that his credit balance on current account". (Emphasis supplied) thus the principle regulating a banker's dealing with a constituent appears to be that a banker cannot refuse to pay if money was availtble to the credit of the customer but can refuse payment only on grounds justifiable in law. By declining to pay on anv other ground he does so on peril of being sued for neglect of the banker's lawful obligations Question is whether any such lapse had occurred herein by the defendant-bank. ( 20 ) AS regards duties and liabilities of a Banker in clearing a bill, the following statement in Halsbury's Laws of england, 4th Edition, Para 106 Vol. 3, page 81 may be noticed in the context with profit :"money received on a bill by a sub-agent is in law received by the banker, apart from any question of account between him and the sub-agent. A banker receiving bills for collection from another banker is agent for the remitting banker, not for that banker's customer unless, therefore, the banker has distinct notice that the bills are the property of the customer, they may be treated as the property of the remitting banker, and are subject to a lien for any balance due from the latter". Para 100:-Duties of a collecting banker. "in collecting cheques and other instruments for a customer a banker acts basically as a mere agent or conduit pipe to receive payment of the cheques from the banker on whom they are drawn and to hold the proceeds at the disposal of his customer". Para 100:-Duties of a collecting banker. "in collecting cheques and other instruments for a customer a banker acts basically as a mere agent or conduit pipe to receive payment of the cheques from the banker on whom they are drawn and to hold the proceeds at the disposal of his customer". Regards the effect of attachment by garnishee order the following statement in para 88 is useful :"88 Attachment by garnishee order: money on current account can be attached by means of a garnishee order. On the service of a garnishee order nisi, made on a judgment against the customer, the whole credit balance on current account is impounded irrespective of the relative amounts of the balance and the judgment debt (except where the order directs othe wise), and the banket cannot diminish the balance by paying out of it even cheques drawn prior to service of the order". (Emphasis supplied) ( 21 ) THE Madras High Court in the case of Modern Automobiles v. Travancore national and Quillon Bank Ltd (AIR (29) 1942 Madras 377) has held that in a case where a cheque had been sent for collection to a out station bank, the proceeds of the cheque must be deemed to have been realised by the Principal bank on the respective dates on which the cheques had been realised by the out station bank. That was a case in which two cheques drawn on the Madras Bank had been presented at Bombay and later sent for collection at Madras. The question having arisen as to when the proceeds of the cheques must be treated as having been realised so far as the Bombay bank was concerned, the Court held that vis-a-vis the Bombay branch cheques must be held to have been realised on the date they were realised by the Madras branch. This dicta is based on the theory of agency adverted to in the statement appearing in Halsbury's Laws of England supra. With respect I am in agreement with the principle enunciated in the case referred to above. ( 22 ) THUS it is seen the concept of principal and agent in banking transactions appears to be well entrenched in practice. In this case realisation bv the bangalore branch of the defendant-bank amounted in law to realisation by the defendant-bank itself is a conclusion that follows on the doctrine of principal and agent referred to supra. ( 22 ) THUS it is seen the concept of principal and agent in banking transactions appears to be well entrenched in practice. In this case realisation bv the bangalore branch of the defendant-bank amounted in law to realisation by the defendant-bank itself is a conclusion that follows on the doctrine of principal and agent referred to supra. ( 23 ) MR. Hande however urges that as to when a customer's money could be said to have been credited to his account depended on the rules of the bank and having reliance on the evidence of the bank Manger, that on the 28th of February 1968, the Bank would not have encashed a cheque drawn by the plaintiff if it was more than Rs. 18. 80, Counsel seeks to over come the effect of the principles noticed above. ( 24 ) WE do not have the bank's rules or of any mode as to how it regulates its business and even so, assuming that the Manager was right when he said that on the 28th of February 1968 the plaintiff could not have taken away anything in excess of Rs. 18. 80, what is of materiality is the fact that by the 24th the bank at Bangalore had realised Rs. 3,000/- and odd on the strength of the cheque drawn in favour of the plaintiff. Such realisation being for and on behalf of the principal i e,, the defendant-bank, in law, realisation by the defendant must be treated as having materialised on the date when its agent realised the proceeds of the cheque. This conclusion follows not from the rules of the bank but on the principle of the law of agency. The maxim qui facit per alium facit per se is well known. It means one who acts by another acts by himself. When plaintiff's cheque was realised by the Gandhinagar bank at Bangalore on the 24th instant, in law the defendant Bank at Mangalore must be deemed to have realised it. The fact that till the 24th or the 29th when there was a credit balance in the account of the plaintiff following the realisation of the cheque but nonetheless there being some delay in those funds being placed at the plaintiff's disposal, the same does not alter the situation. It becomes clear that at the latest by the 28th the bank held more than Rs. It becomes clear that at the latest by the 28th the bank held more than Rs. 2,500/- to the credit of the plaintiff but by then having been prohibited by an order of the court not to pay that sum to the plaintiff, no valid grievance could be made against the bank for having refused to encash the plaintiff's cheques. The issue of the clarificatory order by the Court as per ext P. 4 is clearly besides the point. ( 25 ) WHAT is more of as held that on the 28th or on the 27th instant when the prohibitory order was made the bank held to the credit of the plaintiff an amount of rs. 2,450/- and odd being the sum mentioned in the qarnishee order, that order would certainly be effective both in law and on facts. The clarification issued by the Court as per Ext P. 4 does not militate against this conclusion. After a consideration of the several aspects of the matter in the background of the submissions mads by Counsel on either side, I must therefore hold that the refusal by the bank to pay out the proceeds of the cheque in question or to transfer the same to the account of the plaintiff's wife and the subsequent action of the bank in obeying the order of the court by depositing the money in Court, cannot be said to have been indulged in defiance of the law so as to merit the reproach of being treated as excessive or of exposing the plaintiff to hardship, inconvenience and loss. This appeal which does not raise any other point, therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .