Judgment 1. THIS is an appeal from an order dated December 8, 1993 passed by a learned Judge of this Court. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellants, the suit being on the basis of six several Bills of Exchange, which, according to the suit is against the appellant, being the drawer of the six several Bills of Exchange. The respondent-plaintiff took out Master's Summons on September 4, 1993 for final judgment and decree for Rs.29,08,328. 73 against the appellant-defendant No. 1, J. J. Corporation, interest, interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.29,08,328. 73. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant no. 2 is the sole-proprietor of appellant-defendant No. 1. 2. THE respondent-plaintiff is the payee and holder in due course of six several Bills of Exchange/hundis drawn by the defendants on one M/s. Spin- Mech. Industries, of 20 Old Court House Street, Calcutta. The said Bills of Exchange/hundis were payable to and/or to the order of the respondent/plaintiff. It is the further case of the respondent-plaintiff that the said Bills of Exchange were duly presented to the said M/s. Spin-Mech. Industries for obtaining payments but the said documents were dishonoured by non-payment. Due notice of dishonour had been given to the appellant- defendants. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendants as drawer of the said bills of Exchange are liable to compensate the respondent-plaintiff in respect of the said Bills of Exchange together with interest. The appellant-defendant took out Master's Summons dated 20th September, 1993 for an order that delay, if any, in making the application for leave to defend in suit No. 498 of 1992 (the present suit) be condoned; leave be given to the defendants to defend the suit No. 498 of 1992 and to file the written statement within such time as this Court may deed fit and proper. The appellant-defendants case is that the said drafts being the subject-matter of the suit were drawn under the Letters of Credit issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the appellant-defendants being the beneficiary of the said Letters of Credits. Before the learned trial Judge the appellant-defendant submitted that the said documents had been executed by the appellant-defendant in the course of an arrangement between the respondent-plaintiff and M/s. Spin-Mech. Industries under which this Spin-Mech. Before the learned trial Judge the appellant-defendant submitted that the said documents had been executed by the appellant-defendant in the course of an arrangement between the respondent-plaintiff and M/s. Spin-Mech. Industries under which this Spin-Mech. Industries were granted overdraft facilities. The said overdraft facilities included a Letters of Credit in favour of the appellant-defendants. In the course of the transaction between the appellant-defendants and Spin-Mech. Industries, the appellant defendants supplied the goods to Spin-Mech. Industries and received payment under the Letter of Credit. It was submitted before the learned trial Court by the appellant-defendants that the said Letters of Credit were irrevocable and if the respondent-plaintiff was permitted to recover the amount from the appellant-defendants it would amount to revocation of the letter of credit. 3. THE learned Trial Judge rejected this contention by holding that as would appear from the letter of credit that credit would be made available to the defendants by negotiation against presentation of certain documents and of the defendants' Draft at 90 days' D. A. (Documents against acceptance) from the date of acceptance inclusive of the grace period drawn on Spin-Mech. Industries. The learned Judge, inter alia, held that from a perusal of the documents there could not be any doubt that they were indeed Bills of Exchange and the defendants could not give any explanation as to what other function the documents were supposed to fulfil and under Section 37 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the drawer of the Bill of Exchange is liable on the same as a principal debtor along with the acceptor. There were other defences taken by the defendants-appellants before the Trial Court, viz., that no notice of dishonour was given by the plaintiff-Bank to the defendants, and that the Bills of Exchange were not stamped and as such the defendants could not be made liable on the documents. The learned trial Judge rejected these two contentions as well. The learned Trial Judge, accordingly, by the said order under dated December 8, 1993, dismissed the application taken out by the defendants-appellants for leave to defend. Hence arises this appeal. 4. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants has submitted that although the suit was on the Bills of Exchange but the said Bills of Exchange were issued under the letters of credit included in Annexure-B to the petition for leave to defend. Hence arises this appeal. 4. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants has submitted that although the suit was on the Bills of Exchange but the said Bills of Exchange were issued under the letters of credit included in Annexure-B to the petition for leave to defend. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants that the said letters of credit were irrevocable and the respondent-Bank in negotiating the said letters of credit cannot take recourse to the appellants for the said Bills of exchange being dishonoured by non- payment. It is the case of the appellants that the appellants supplied goods to one Spin-Mech. Industries, the acceptor of the said Bills of Exchange, and received payment under the said letters of credit from the respondent-Bank. Such letters of credit were issued on the specific condition that for dishonouring of the said Bills of Exchange the respondent-Bank cannot take recourse to the appellants' being the beneficiaries of the said letters of credit. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as it would appear from the letters of credit, the said letters of credit were subject to the following : "we have issued the documentary credit as detailed above. It is subject to Uniform customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision. International Chamber of Commerce, publication No. 400. We request you to notify the credit to the beneficiary. " Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to Article 10 of the said Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1983 Revision. ICC publication No. 400, which inter alia, stipulates that an irrevocable credit constitutes a definite undertaking of the issuing bank, provided that the stipulated documents are presented and that the terms and conditions of the credit are complied with, the relevant terms being Article 10 (a) (iv) which stipulates that if the credit provides for negotiation to pay without recourse to drawers and/or bona fide holders, draft (s) drawn by the beneficiary, at sight or at a tenor, on the applicant for the credit or on any other drawee stipulated in the credit other than the issuing bank itself, or to provide for negotiation by another bank and to pay, as above, if such negotiation is not effected. Relying on this Article 10, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that if the credit provides for negotiation as according to the learned Counsel, in the instant case, the payment should be without recourse to the drawers (i.e. , the appellants) - here applicant is the said Spin-Mech. Industries, it is clear from the said article of the said Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1983 revision. ICC Publication No. 400 (hereinafter referred to as the Documentary Credits) that the respondent-Bank after making payment under the said letters of credit to the appellants, cannot have recourse to the appellants for recovery of the amount on the ground that the bills drawn by the appellants were dishonoured by non-payment. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the said letters of credit are irrevocable ones and once payment has been made as the Bank is bound to, under the said letters of credit, later on the respondent- Bank cannot recover the said sum on the ground that the bills as drawn by the appellants and accepted by the said Spin-Mech. Industries were dishonoured by non-payment. 5. THE learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank, has, however, submitted that this is a suit simpliciter on the said Bills of Exchange and for recovery of the amount upon non-payment of the Bills of Exchange on their presentation. Such suit can be filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the respondent-Bank had taken out an application for final judgment for the sum claimed in the plaint filed in the suit. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent-Bank that it would appear from the said letters of credit that the letters of credit were issued by the respondent-Bank upon the appellants' drawing Bills of Exchange referred to in the plaint and the appellants as drawers of the bills would be liable if the bills were dishonoured by non-payment. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent-Bank that it would appear from the said letters of credit that the letters of credit were issued by the respondent-Bank upon the appellants' drawing Bills of Exchange referred to in the plaint and the appellants as drawers of the bills would be liable if the bills were dishonoured by non-payment. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent-Bank that there is no contract between the respondent-Bank and the appellants that the aid letters of credit were without recourse to the beneficiary, Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that it is the specific case of the respondent as it would appear from the affidavit filed in support of summons for final judgment, that the said letters of credit were issued upon the Bills of Exchange drawn by the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the said bills were drawn by the appellants, accepted by the said Spin-Mech. Industries and dishonoured by non-payment upon presentation on the acceptor. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent-Bank that the said Article 10 of the Documentary Credit has no application to the present case. In the present case, the bills were drawn by the appellants and upon such bills being drawn, the said letters of credit were issued. These bills are in the nature of security for the letters of credit. It would appear from the said letters of credit that the credits would be made available to the appellants by negotiation against presentation of certain documents. 6. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-bank has also drawn our attention to another article of the Documentary Credits, being Article 7. 10 which, inter alia, stipulates that where a negotiating bank buys documents which include drafts. If these are dishonoured the bank has the right of recourse of a holder against the beneficiary as the drawer of the draft. It is also stipulated in the Article that the negotiating bank may not have such right if the beneficiary draws the said drafts "without recourse" or with some other wording so as to exclude his liability under it to a holder. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that here the beneficiaries are the appellants and the holder is the respondent-Bank and there is no endorsement on the said letters of credit that it will be "without recourse. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that here the beneficiaries are the appellants and the holder is the respondent-Bank and there is no endorsement on the said letters of credit that it will be "without recourse. "Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank has also referred to a decision reported in 1927 App. Cases 711, M. A. Sessoon and Sons Ltd. v. International Banking corporation. In this case also, the appellants handed to the respondents with the bills, the shipping documents and also a memorandum describing the bills as D. A. (i.e. , documents against acceptance) drafts. The respondents handed over the documents to the buyers against their acceptances, which were dishonoured upon maturity. The respondents sued the appellants as drawers of the bills. The Privy Council, in that case, held that the respondents were entitled and bound to treat the description of the bills as "d. A. drafts" as a direction to hand the documents to the drawers on their acceptance, and that the appellants had no defence. The Privy Council also found in that case, inter alia, that the appellants were not in a position to show that when they discounted the drafts, they bargained that the transaction should be without recourse. As it appears, the present suit is on the Bills of Exchange and the plaintiff-Bank (the respondent before us) has claimed recovery of the sum covered by the Bills of exchange on the ground that the said Bills of Exchange were dishonoured by non-payment. The bank has sued the appellants as drawers of the bills and according to the bank, the appellants are liable on such Bills of Exchange being dishonoured by non-payment, as drawers of the said bills. We find that the stipulations in the said documentary Credits would not come to the assistance of the appellants, it appears that article 10 of the Documentary Credits stipulates an undertaking of the issuing Bank and in the instant case, we find that here the respondent-Bank is the issuing Bank and also the advising Bank and negotiating bank. It also appears to us that the said Bills of exchange were drawn by the appellants and upon such bills of Exchange being drawn by the appellants, the said letters of credits as would appear from the letters of credit were issued by the respondent-Bank. It also appears to us that the said Bills of exchange were drawn by the appellants and upon such bills of Exchange being drawn by the appellants, the said letters of credits as would appear from the letters of credit were issued by the respondent-Bank. The relevant stipulation in the letters of credit is as follows:- "credit available with Advising Bank by negotiation against presentation of the documents detailed herein below and of your draft (s) 90 days DA from the date of acceptance (inclusive of grace period) drawn on Applicant." 7. IT appears that the credit as available with the advising bank would be on negotiation against presentation of the documents detailed i.e., ninety days from the date of acceptance (inclusive of grace period) drawn on the application. It would, therefore, appear that the said letters of credit were issued on the condition that the appellants would draw Bills of Exchange as referred to in the letters of credit and upon such Bills of Exchange being drawn, the respondent-Bank negotiated those documents, made payments against the letters of credit to the appellants, being the beneficiaries. It would also appear from the fact there is no stipulation that the said letters of credit would be "without recourse". There has been no contract between the parties; nor is there any correspondence between the parties, which would indicate that the said letters of credit would be "without recourse", and it would appear from Article 7. 10 of the Documentary credits that negotiating bank has right to recourse of a holder against the beneficiary as the drawer of the draft. 8. IT appears that the suit is on the six Bills of Exchange, one of which is an follows :- "June 21, 1991 drawn under Documentary Credit No. G-2001 91276 dated 21. 6. 1991 and ANZ grindlays Bank Plc., 19 N. S. Road, Calcutta-700 001. 90 days from the date of acceptance please pay to ANZ Gridlays Bank Plc., 19, n. S. Road, Calcutta-700 001 or order the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) for value received against our Bill No. JJC/1/91-92 dated 21. 6. 1991 and challan nos. JJC/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6/92 dated 19.6.1991 and 20. 6. 1991. For Spin-Mech. Industries, R.K. Modi (H. U. F)Accepted m/s. Spin-Mech. 6. 1991 and challan nos. JJC/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6/92 dated 19.6.1991 and 20. 6. 1991. For Spin-Mech. Industries, R.K. Modi (H. U. F)Accepted m/s. Spin-Mech. Industries 20, Old Court House Street, calcutta-700 001." It is not in dispute that the said Bills of Exchange were accepted by the said spin-Mech. Industries. The Bills of Exchange were duly presented upon the acceptor for payment, but were dishonoured by non-payment. Under Section 37 of the Negotiable instruments Act, the appellants being the drawers of the Bills of Exchanges are liable on the same as the principal debtors with the acceptor. We, therefore, hold that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in refusing to grant leave to defend to the appellants on the facts of the case and that the application for leave to defend taken out by the appellants was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 9. WE affirm the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge on December 8, 1993. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 10. LEARNED Counsel for the appellants prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order. We grant stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of two weeks from date. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking. Appeal dismissed.