Judgment : Heard. 2. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24. 1983 made in O.S.No.186 of 1981 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 3. For the purpose of convenience, parties are described as per their rank in the suit. 4. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein, who filed the above suit O.S.No.186 of 1981 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.42,200 under an alleged forged cheque bearing No.021883, dated 27. 1981 drawn in favour of an fictitious person Pauldurai Nadar, on the first defendant respondent bank and which was later transferred to the collecting bank, namely the second defendant herein and encashed on 30.7.1981 by another fictitious person, namely Shanmugam, on a withdrawal slip issued by Pauldurai Nadar. 5. According to the plaintiff-appellant, even though the said cheque was issued by P.Ws.1 and 2, the signature of P.W.2 was forged. On suspicion of such forgery, the plaintiff-appellant made a complaint on 8. 1981 to the police, who, on an investigation recovered the original cheque bearing No.021883 from the first defendant-respondent bank on 18. 1981 itself. Alleging that the said cheque was forged, the plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover the said sum of Rs.42,200 from the defendant-respondent bank, jointly and severally. 6. According to the first defendant-respondent bank, the specimen signature available under Ex.B-2 tallies with the alleged forged cheque bearing No.021883 dated 27. 1981, a photocopy of which is marked as Ex.B-1. That apart, the first defendant respondent claims that the signature in Exs.B-1 and B-2 also tallies with the signature in Exs.B-3 and B-4. The first defendant-respondent contends that even as per the pleadings in the plaint, P.W.I, after signing the cheques, entrusted the same for the signature of P.W.2 and therefore, P.W.2 should be held primarily responsible for any such alleged forgery. The negligence on the part of P.W.2 cannot be a ground to find fault in the first-defendant-respondent bank and to seek recovery for a sum of Rs.42,200 as prayed for. .7. According to the second defendant-respondent, the alleged fictitious person Pauldurai Nadar himself was introduced by P.W.2 and the said introduction letter is marked as Ex.B-2 and the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to seek relief, as prayed for, for their own contributed negligence, admittedly committed by P.Ws.1 and 2. .7. According to the second defendant-respondent, the alleged fictitious person Pauldurai Nadar himself was introduced by P.W.2 and the said introduction letter is marked as Ex.B-2 and the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to seek relief, as prayed for, for their own contributed negligence, admittedly committed by P.Ws.1 and 2. In any event, it is alleged that the act, of the second defendant-respondent in releasing the amount, on the withdrawal slip issued by Pauldurai Nadar, in favour of Shanmugam, is bona fide and protected under Sec.131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act.). 8. The plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the signatories to the cheques referred under Exs.B-3 to B-14 as well as Exhibit B-1 and produced seven documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the defendants-respondents, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2, on behalf of the first defendant-respondent and second defendant-respondent respectively, and twenty three documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-23. 9. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 as well as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-23, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, found that the signature of P.W.2 is not forged and that the plaintiff-appellant is guilty of contributed negligence, in his judgment and decree dated 24. 1983 in O.S.No.186 of 1981. 10. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in his detailed judgment dated 24. 1983 also observed that the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant had fairly conceded the negligence on the part of the plaintiff-appellant’s staff. After comparing the Exs.B-3 to B-9 and B-10 to B-14, which are the cheques relating to the period from 7. 1981 to 17. 1981 and from 27. 1981 to 8. 1981 respectively, found that the signature of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the Ex.B-1 also tallies with their signatures found in the series of cheque in Exs.B-3 to B-9 and B-10 to B-14. Accordingly the said suit was dismissed by his judgment and decree dated 24. 1983 in O.S.No.186 of 1981 holding that the plaintiff appellant is not entitled for decree as prayed for, as plaintiff has not proved that the cheque dated 27. 1981 is forged. Aggrieved by which, the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant preferred the above appeal. .11. Accordingly the said suit was dismissed by his judgment and decree dated 24. 1983 in O.S.No.186 of 1981 holding that the plaintiff appellant is not entitled for decree as prayed for, as plaintiff has not proved that the cheque dated 27. 1981 is forged. Aggrieved by which, the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant preferred the above appeal. .11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contends that assuming there is any negligence on the part of the employees of the plaintiff-appellant, the same cannot be put against the interest of the plaintiff-appellant nor the defendants-respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to take advantage of such negligence or carelessness, particularly in banking transaction. The court below erred in arriving at the conclusion that the cheque dated 27. 1981 is not forged merely on the basis of secondary piece of evidence, namely photocopy of the cheque dated 27. 1981 marked as Ex.B-1. The collecting bank ought not to have released the amount on withdrawal slip said to have been issued by a fictitious person, namely, Pauldurai Nadar, in favour of another fictitious person namely Shanmugam. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the first defendant-respondent contends that the plaintiff-appellant having approached the court for recovery of a substantial amount of Rs.42,200 on a specific plea that the cheque dated 27. 1981 is a forged one, ought to have taken steps to prove that the same is forged in the manner known to law, particularly when the plaintiff-appellant himself has lodged a complaint to the police, under Ex.A-3, dated 8. 1981, pursuant to which the original cheque was seized by the police from the first defendant-respondent bank, as admitted by P.Ws.1 and 2. 13. The learned counsel for the first defendant respondent further contends that the plaintiff-appellant cannot shirk his responsibility to discharge his burden of proving that the cheque dated 27. 1981 is forged, when the first defendant respondent specifically alleges that the said fictitious person Pauldurai Nadar was introduced by P.W.2 himself. He also brought to my notice the admission by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the signature in Ex.B-1 tallies with the signature in Exs.B-3 to B-14, which were issued during the relevant time and therefore, contends that the first defendant-respondent acted bona fide in performing their obligations. 14. He also brought to my notice the admission by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the signature in Ex.B-1 tallies with the signature in Exs.B-3 to B-14, which were issued during the relevant time and therefore, contends that the first defendant-respondent acted bona fide in performing their obligations. 14. The learned counsel for the second defendant respondent, adding to the contention of the learned counsel for the first defendant-respondent, invited my attention to the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2, with reference to their signatures in Exs.B-3 to B-9, and Exs.B-10 to B-14, which are the cheques issued during the very same period viz., 7. 1981 to 17. 1981 and 27. 1981 to 8. 1981 respectively, that their signature in Exs.B-3 to B-9 and B-10 to B-14 tally with the signature in Exs.B-1 and B-2. She also invited my attention that the second defendant-respondent’s act is fully bona fide and protected under Secs.85 and 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. .16. It is well-settled in law that the plaintiff appellant who seeks relief before the court with specific averment, is expected to discharge his burden of proving his averment, more particularly when the defendants-respondents denied the said averment. In the instant case, admittedly the dispute is with reference to the alleged forged cheque dated 27. 1981, the original of which was not produced before the courts below. The plaintiff-appellant would contend that the court below erred in dismissing the suit merely on the basis of the photocopy of the said cheque dated 27. 1981, which can at the best, only be a secondary evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first defendant respondent explains that the first defendant-respondent bank do not withhold the original cheque at all, in which event, they cannot be found at fault. 117. In view of the fact that admittedly, the original cheque has been seized by the police at the instance of the complaint given by the plaintiff appellant himself, the plaintiff-appellant ought to have taken steps under O.11, Rule 15 read with O.12, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. 117. In view of the fact that admittedly, the original cheque has been seized by the police at the instance of the complaint given by the plaintiff appellant himself, the plaintiff-appellant ought to have taken steps under O.11, Rule 15 read with O.12, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff/appellant having failed to do so, cannot now shift the burden on the defendants respondents and complain that defendants/respondents failed to produce the original cheque before the court for the court’s perusal nor find fault on the court that the court erred in dismissing the suit for having relied on the photocopy of the cheque dated 27. 1981. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, in this connection. 118. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents that the act of the defendants-respondents are well protected under Secs.85 and 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as follows: Sec. 85 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: (1) Where a cheque payable to order purports to be endorsed by or on behalf of the payee, the drawee is discharged by payment in due course. (2) Where a cheque is originally expressed to be payable to bearer, the drawee is discharged by payment in due course to the bearer thereof, notwithstanding any endorsement whether in full or in blank appearing thereon, and notwithstanding that any such endorsement purports to restrict or exclude further negotiation." Sec.131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: "Non-liability of banker receiving payment of cheque -A banker who has in good faith and without negligence received payment for a customer of a cheque crossed generally or specially to himself shall not, in case the title to the cheque proves defective, incur any liability to the true owner of the cheque by reason only of having received such payment." 19. The Plaintiff appellant, therefore, having failed to prove their case, is not entitled to seek relief, as prayed for. 20. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity either in the reasons and findings or the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 24. 1983 made in O.S.No.186 of 1981. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.