HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Ramesh, learned Counsel for petitioner holding brief for Sri M. V. Sheshachala and Sri D. Manamohan holding brief for sri C. S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the respondents. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with the allegations to the effect that the deceased mahadevaiah had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- in the year 1991 and thereafter he had issued two cheques dated 28. 11. 1991 and ( 2 ) 12. 1991 towards the repayment of that loan. The plaint further mentioned that Mahadevajah had written the dates on the cheques on 18. 5. 1992 under his signature. 2. The cheques had been presented to the Bank, that is, the state Bank of Mysore, University Branch Campus on 8. 9. 1992 and on 9th September 92. The Bank returned those cheques with the endorsement on 8. 9. 1992, 'insufficient funds' and on 9. 9. 1992 with the endorsement, ' party reported deceased'. ( 3 ) IN the plaint, it has been alleged that the two cheques have been returned without encashment, so he had also given the notice and thereafter filed the suit for recovery with the allegations that the cheques had been dishonoured by the Bank. In the valuation clause the reference had also been made, as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction etc. is amount due from defts under Cheque no. 0982624 for Rs. 20,000/- and amount due from defts under cheque No. 0982625 for Rs. 20,000/- and the plaintiff has prayed for recovery, in total for a sum of Rs. 59,000/- which included the interest amount t6 the tune of Rs. 19416/ -. The defendant without furnishing any written statement fifed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC with the allegations to the effect that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation and plaint should be returned and suit should be dismissed. The Trial Court allowed the applications and dismissed the suit and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (d) of the cpc and ordered refund of the Court-fee under Section 63. The Trial Court allowed the applications and dismissed the suit and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (d) of the cpc and ordered refund of the Court-fee under Section 63. The court below has rejected the plaint after finding that the suit as per plaint allegations was prima facie time barred and plaintiff could not get the benefit of Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, as cheques had been dishonoured. Mere handing over of cheques by the deft to plaintiff will not amount to payment of the part amount of it and it cannot be taken to be acknowledgement of any liability of any debt. As such Sections 18 or 19 is not of any help to the plaintiff. Having recorded these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the application. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has come before this Court by filing the revision under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner contended that, no doubt Were giving of cheques by the debtor to the creditor with the intention to repay the loan, unless cheque is honoured and encashed, may not be taken as a payment. The plaintiff has also not based his cause of action on that or taking that as a payment. Even if Sections 18 or 19 is not applicable, even then learned Counsel contended, the Court below's finding that suit was barred by limitation is erroneous in law, as the case is one which is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and there is no other article covering the present case. Learned Counsel contended that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff when the cheques given by the defendant were dishonoured by the Bank and it is a case for recovery of amount on the basis of the cheques that had been given by the defendant to the plaintiff and were dishonoured by the Bank. The learned Counsel further contended that in para-6 of the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the valuation of claim in suit is also based on the cheques. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision be allowed and order of the Court below be set aside. The learned Counsel further contended that in para-6 of the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the valuation of claim in suit is also based on the cheques. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision be allowed and order of the Court below be set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent defendant contended that the plaint allegations shows that plaintiff had alleged that defendant had taken the loan of Rs. 40,000/- no doubt. Thereafter plaintiff had alleged that defendant had given the cheques and cheques had been dishonoured, but the suit should be taken to be for recovery of loan and when loan was advanced, the cause of action accrued for filing of the suit for recovery from the very day the loan had been advanced, as there was no specified time prescribed for repayment. The suit, as such learned Counsel contended is governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that payment of cheques which had not been honoured will not amount to payment and, as rightly been held not to honour the cheque drawn, indicates that defendant had acknowledged any liability to pay any debt and, so Sections 18 and 19 have rightly been held, not to be applicable to the present case. The learned counsel, in addition to arguing the matter on merits to examine the case, raised an objection to the maintainability of the revision and, submitted that the order rejecting plaint amounts to a decree under section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when it amounts to a decree, the plaintiff had the remedy against the order impugned by way of appeal which he has not preferred. Learned Counsel contended, that Section 115 puts a bar on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115, in cases, where the appeal is maintainable and, as such the Revision Petition should be dismissed on preliminary ground of appeal being not maintainable without going into the merits of the question involved. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers revisional powers and under sub-section 2,. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers revisional powers and under sub-section 2,. it has been provided that, if appeal lies from the order impugned, either to the high Court or to the Subordinate Civil Court, that is, to the District court, Under Section 115 CPC, jurisdiction shall not be exercised to reverse the order. There, no doubt appears to be some substance in respondent's contention, so far as this aspect is concerned, that if appeal did lay ordinarily, powers under Section 115 should not be exercised to reverse the order. If the revision is not maintainable and powers under Section 115 may not be exercised on account of technical reasons ordinarily to reverse the order impugned, but even if revision has been filed and has been admitted, exercise of powers under Section 115 (1) C. P. C. and but later it is found though order requires to be set aside, as it is likely to cause injustice, if it is allowed to exist or stand, then such technicalities can be over come by exercise of its powers under Article 227 ot the Constitution. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of BABY vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD dealing with the question of maintainability of revision under Section 103 of Kerala Act 1 of 1961 in that case after holding, that (though) revision was maintainable under Section 103 of Kerala Land Reforms act (Act 1 of 1964):"but that, in our opinion is not the end of the matter. The high Court had still powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by the Tribunals if the findings of fact had been arrived at by non-consideration of the relevant and material documents, the consideration of which would have led to an opposite conclusion. This power of the High Court under the Constitution of India is always, in addition to the power of revision under Section 103 of the Act. "i take this principle laid down into consideration, I find it is appropriate to examine the case from that angle. ( 7 ) THE reason is, that the revision has been pending in this Court for the last more than 2 years. "i take this principle laid down into consideration, I find it is appropriate to examine the case from that angle. ( 7 ) THE reason is, that the revision has been pending in this Court for the last more than 2 years. No preliminary objection was raised at that time. The dismissing of the revision after lapse of more than 2 years, simply on this ground and asking the party, again to go and file the appeal, may result in delaying the justice and resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. It is one of the well settled principle of law that justice delayed is justice denied. Rules of technicalities are also not to be allowed to have that Play to cause disaster to the course of justice. Rules of procedure are made to serve the cause of justice and are to be sub-servient to cause of justice. Further powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are there anc no part of Section 115 CPC like sub-section 2 thereof can be taken to adversly effect the power of Court under Article 227 of the constitution. The order if appear to be palpably suffering from jurisdictional error and justice requires, the power under Article 227 be exercised, those powers' have to be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and in the interest of justice, as the additional power the Court which it has got under Article 227, keeping in view that the juristic is not to marred by technicaiities. When I so observe I find support for my view from the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases JELAH BAI AND SONS' vs SUNDAR DAS RATHENAI and baby vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD (supra ). ( 8 ) HERE in this case, the Court below net examined the plaint properly and ignored from considering the material allegations. Plaintiff's case is that deft borrowed the money, no doubt in 1991. His further case is that deft gave the cheque in payment of that amount, thereafter he changed the dates and, later on when the cheques were presented to the Bank for payment on 8th September and 9th of September 1992, the Bank dishonoured the cheques on 8th September with endorsement to the effect, insufficient funds in the account and the other on 9th of September that, the accountholder is dead. So this cheque and the cause of action for the suit and valuation of claim in the suit have also been given on the basis of amount of cheque which deft had given and which Bank had dishonoured. It appears to be that this is a cheque for recovery of amount which is the subject-mater of cheque and which cheque has been dishonoured. Past history of the transaction may be different, but here the cause of action which is alleged to have been accrued on 8th and 9th September 1992, is, really on the basis and on the ground that the amount of the cheque has been not paid by the Bank. In this view of the matter, in may opinion this is a suit for recovery of amount, on the basis of the cheque given by the defendant which have been refused by the Bank 'and, such a suit is not covered by any of the Articles given in the Schedule. To the present case, Article 19 will not be applicable to this case and Article 19 having not been applicable and, as no other Article has been pointed out to be applicable, in my opinion the suit which is governed by Article 113 of Schedule to Limitation Act which provides that in suit , for which no limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, 3 years period from the date when the right to sue accrues and right to sue in such a case, will arise only after the cheque is dishonoured and will accrue only after the date the cheque is dishonoured by the Bank. That calculating limitation from 8th or 9th of September 1992, suit was filed on 29. 5. 1995, has been well within time from the date of cheque being dishonoured. ( 9 ) THE defendants, at present are the heirs of the person, who received the cheque. In this view of the matter, it appears to me that the Lower Court, really had not taken into consideration material allegations to determine the nature of the suit and has taken an erroneous view on the subject and passed an illegal order dismissing the suit holding it to be time barred and in directing the plaint to be returned. In this view of the matter, it appears to me that the Lower Court, really had not taken into consideration material allegations to determine the nature of the suit and has taken an erroneous view on the subject and passed an illegal order dismissing the suit holding it to be time barred and in directing the plaint to be returned. ( 10 ) REALLY on the basis of an erroneous decision on the question of law and in particular relating to limitation, the Court below illegally refused to entertain the suit and illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction to determine the suit on merits. The order passed by the court below, no doubt has got the tendency to cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. ( 11 ) FURTHER the Revision Petition having been kept pending foral most 2 and 1/2 years from 1. 1. 1997 till to-day dismissing of revision on the preliminary ground and asking the party to appeal, that will be nothing but adding a more serious injury to the plaintiff, over the injuries already suffered during this period and, it will only delay the whole process of the suit, justice delayed is justice denied. Moto should be that justice may be done and not to deny justice on sheer technicalities under the garb of law. That when additional powers are available under 227, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under section 115 CPC, but there is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly in such a case, where the order of the Court befow tantamounts to illegal refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and refusal to try the suit on merits and has the tendency to cause injustice and injury to the party. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, this Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, hereby quashes order impugned and issues direction to the Court below to entertain the suit restored herewith and decide it on merits, taking that the question of limitation has been decided in this Court that the suit is within limitation. Petition is allowed. Costs of the petition are being made easy, that is, parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .