JUDGMENT : Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff; the first respondent is the original first defendant and the second respondent (now deleted) was the original second defendant. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the two defendants contending that the Chengannur Branch of the plaintiff-Bank and issued a Demand Draft in favour of Paramount Hardware Mart payable at Bombay. The date of the Demand Draft is 3.1.1981. However, the said Demand Draft was intercepted by some unknown parties, and unauthorisedly altered whereby the issuance date was altered to 31.10.1981, and was made payable at the Ahmedabad Branch of the plaintiff-Bank. This Demand Draft, according to the plaintiff, was sought to be credited to the account of the second defendant with the first defendant- Bank, which was the collecting agent for the second defendant. According to the plaintiff, the Ahmedabad Branch of the plaintiff-Bank could not detect the fraud, and passed the payment of the Demand Draft in favour of the second defendant as the drawee of the Demand Draft, on the basis of the endorsement made by the first defendant collecting Bank to the effect that it would be paid into the account of the payee. 2.1 According to the plaintiff, it has ultimately discovered that there was a fraudulent alteration in the Demand Draft, and the plaintiff-Bank, therefore, filed a suit against the first defendant-collecting Bank and the second defendant - the holder of the account into whose account the Demand Draft was paid. It also transpires that the second defendant withdrew substantial amount of the Demand Draft and then absconded. 2.2. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence on such issues, passed a decree against the second defendant, namely, the account- holder into whose account the amount had been paid, but dismissed the suit against the first defendant-collecting Bank. 3. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit against the collecting Banker. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 4.1. 3. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit against the collecting Banker. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 4.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant first submits that Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not, on the facts of the case, support the defence of the collecting Bank inasmuch as the same would confer protection upon a collecting Bank only in absence of any negligence on its part, and only if it has demonstrably acted in a bona-fide manner. In my opinion, on a true construction of Section 131 of the said Act, the proposition would be otherwise. The Bank in question which seeks protection of the said provision needs only to establish that it acted bona-fide, and that its action was not demonstrably negligent. In other words, this protection conferred on a Bank taking up such a plea would fail to protect him only if the other side contending negligence on the part of such Bank establishes with appropriate evidence that such Bank was negligent in the performance of its statutory duty and/or regulations etc. 4.2. In this context, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court reported at AIR 1946 Bombay page 482. However, in my opinion, on the facts as discussed in the said decision, it does not lay down any proposition as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, the same would support the contention of the first respondent. 4.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported at 1990 Company Cases (Supreme Court) page 225. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has laid down that Section 131 of the said Act would confer protection to the Bank once such Bank establishes that it had taken reasonable care in the performance of its duties, and had flouted any statutory provisions or guidelines. What is relevant and material is the proposition which flows from the aforesaid decision that Section 131 does not confer any absolute or stringent duty on the Bank claiming protection of this provision. What is relevant and material is the proposition which flows from the aforesaid decision that Section 131 does not confer any absolute or stringent duty on the Bank claiming protection of this provision. In other words, it is for the person making the allegation of negligence, the plaintiff in this case, to establish with appropriate evidence that the collecting Bank was negligent in the performance of its functions. If the plaintiff fails to establish by appropriate evidence any specific negligence on the part of the collecting Bank, the latter can certainly resort to the protection conferred by Section 131 of the said Act. 5. In the facts of the case, I have been addressed by both the learned Counsel on oral and documentary evidence on record. I have also been referred to such documentary evidence as the learned Counsel for the parties chose to present to me. 5.1. Taking an over all view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly framed the correct issues, and has reasonably and properly appreciated the evidence on record and has reached the necessary and proper conclusion therefrom. I am in complete agreement with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. 5.2. The trial Court has discussed in para 10 of its judgment the plea of negligence put up by the plaintiff as against the first defendant. In this context, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that, although such a plea has been made in the plaint, the same has not been substantiated by any allegation, oral assertion or documentary evidence, tendered by the plaintiff. The two witnesses who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff have not made any oral assertion to the effect that the first defendant has been negligent in any manner. In other words, the oral evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses when read in conjunction with the oral evidence of the defendants' witnesses establishes that the defendant-Bank, as the collecting Bank, has duly followed the established procedure both in the matter of the collecting the Demand Draft in question and also in the matter of opening an account in the name of the second defendant (that is to say, after obtaining the proper introduction through a party known to the Bank). 5.3. 5.3. The trial Court has also discussed in detail in para 11 of its judgment the negligence displayed by the Ahmedabad Branch of the plaintiff- Bank itself, in passing the Demand Draft without due care and caution. In other words, had there been no negligence on the part of the Ahmedabad Branch of the plaintiff-Bank, the monies would not have been paid into the account of the second defendant and the plaintiff would, therefore, have not suffered the loss of the said amount. 5.4. This aspect has also been discussed at length in para 14 of its decision after setting out the relevant issues. 5.5. From the aforesaid substance of the evidence on record, only one conclusion can follow, that is, the plaintiff-Bank has failed to establish its allegations as against the first defendant to the effect that the latter was negligent as a collecting Bank, and was negligent in permitting the second defendant to open an account with it and it was on account of such negligence that the plaintiff-Bank suffered a loss of the amount of the Demand Draft in question. 5.6. What is equally relevant, and what is not satisfactorily explained by the evidence led by the plaintiff-Bank, is how and under what circumstances, the plaintiff-Bank honoured the Demand Draft in question, although it is obvious on the face of the Demand Draft (and it does not require any Hand Writing Expert to discern the fact) that the name of the Payee Branch which is stated to be "Ahmedabad" is in a hand-writing which is significantly different from the hand-writting which sets out the name of the payee and the amount of the Demand Draft in the upper portion of the said Demand Draft, and such insertion of the word "Ahmedabad" is in bolder and deeper shade of ink than the rest of the portion. In other words, a forgery of this blatant nature should have been obvious and easily detectable by the plaintiff-Bank itself, which it failed to defect. Under the circumstances, it would be a futile attempt in clearing the first defendant-Bank as collecting Bank with the fraud, particularly since the second defendant has absconded and is apparently beyond the reach of the plaintiff-Bank. 6. In the premises aforesaid, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same therefore requires to be dismissed. The same is accordingly summarily dismissed. 6. In the premises aforesaid, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same therefore requires to be dismissed. The same is accordingly summarily dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.