S. K. Agarwal,j. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated17. 8. 1977 passed by the Court of Mr. N. L. Kakkar, Additional District Judge, Delhidecreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for Rs. 47665. 00 with costs and interestat the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation,against the appellant-Bank. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS filed a suit alleging therein that they were maintaining currentaccount with the Union Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi; in which theyused to deposit substantial amounts; on 27/10/1974 one cheque book containing100 cheque forms was obtained by them from the Bank; on scrutiny of the statement ofaccount from 1. 10. 1974 to 7. 11. 1974 furnished by the Bank it was found that a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 was debited to their account on 5. 11. 1974 and another sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 wasdebited to their account on 6. 11. 1974; enquiries from the Bank revealed that these debitentries were made against the two cheques purported to have been issued from anothercheque book issued by the appellant on 5. 11. 1974 to someone else; the respondents neverreceived the said cheque book and had sent no requisition for the same; on 7. 11. 1974respondents received a letter dated 5. 11. 1974 from the appellant-Bank staling that thecheque book containing 50 cheques was issued and asking the same to be acknowledged;on 8. 11. 1974 respondents informed the appellant that no such request was made by themfor issuance of cheque book; none of the partners had issued the said two cheques to anyone; the signatures on these two cheques, and on the request letter dated 5. 11. 1974 forissuance of the cheque book were forged; that the Bank had no right to debit their accountand requested the appellant to credit their account alongwith interest. ( 3 ) THE appellant-Bank filed written statement pleading therein that the account ofthe respondents was properly debited in the ordinary course of business and the chequesencashed, bore the signatures of Radhey Shyam, one of the partners of the respondentfirm, and his signatures tallied with the specimen signatures available in the Bankrecords; Bank refuted the allegation of the plaintiffs that no request was made by themfor issuance of a cheque book on 5. 11. 11. 1974; and that the officers of the Bank acted in goodfaith and without any negligence, on their part in the matter of encashment of thecheques and issuance of cheque book. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court framed the following issues : (I) Whether the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code had been issued bythe plaintiff? OPP (ii) Whether letter of request for issuance of cheque bookscontaining the cheques in question had been issued to thedefendant by the plaintiff? OPD (iii) Whether cheques in question i. e. for Rs. 20,000. 00 dated5. 11. 1974 and Rs. 25,000. 00 dated 6. 11. 1974 had been issued bythe plaintiff? OPD (iiia) Whether the defendants Bank paid the amount of thesetwo cheques in question in good faith and withoutnegligence in the ordinary course of its business and if soto what effect? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest? If so atwhat rate? OPP (v) Relief. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court decided allthe issues in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. We have heard learnedcounsels for the parties and have been taken through the record. ( 6 ) MR. J. Lal, learned Advocate for the appellant referred to various provisions ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short the Act ). Section 10 defines payment indue course, as payment in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in goodfaith and without negligence, to any person in possession thereof under circumstanceswhich do not afford a reasonable ground for believing that he is not entitled to receivepayment of the amount therein mentioned; Section 31 fixes liability of the drawee ofcheque and requires the drawee of a cheque, having sufficient funds of the drawer inhis hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque, must pay the cheque whenrequired so to do, and, in default of such payment, must compensate the drawer for anyloss or damage caused by such default and Section 89 provides payment of instrumenton which alteration is not apparent. It is argued that Radhey Shyam was the partner ofthe firm, who was entitled to operate the account; on 5. 11. It is argued that Radhey Shyam was the partner ofthe firm, who was entitled to operate the account; on 5. 11. 1974 on the basis of his requestletter, cheque book containing 50 cheque forms was issued; signatures of Radhey Shyamapparently tallied with the specimen signatures available in the Bank; the appellantacted in good faith without any negligence and therefore the findings recorded by thetrial Court are not sustainable. In support of his submission he relied on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Bank of Maharashtra v. Automotive Engineering Co. , 1993 (2)SCC 97 wherein it was held : "under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant-Bank had aliability to honour the cheque and make payment if the cheque was otherwise inorder. payment in due course under Section 10 of the Act means payment inaccordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and withoutnegligence. In the facts of the case, there was no occasion to doubt about thegenuineness of the cheque from the apparent tenor of the instrument. Nor is thereany evidence showing that the payment of the said cheque had not been made ingood faith. Although no strait-jacket formula can be laid down to cover each caseof negligence of a Banker and the question of negligence requires to be decided inthe facts and circumstances in each case, but the appellant-Bank cannot be held -tobe guilty of negligence simply because an unltraviolet ray lamp was not kept in thebranch and the cheque in question was not subjected under the ultraviolet raylamp. " ( 7 ) MR. Y. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents brought to our noticethe statement of Public Witness 8, Radhey Shyam, partner of the respondent firm who has statedthat on 27. 10. 1974 they had received a cheque book containing 100 cheque forms and thesame was not exhausted and, therefore, there was no occasion in writing another letteron 5. 11. 1974 Exhibit DW 7/1 asking for the issuance of another cheque book; Anilmalhotra was never in their employment; his signatures on the request letter and thecheques were forged and same was apparent to the naked eye; even signatures of Anilmalhotra at two places on the said request letter were substantially different. He alsoreferred to the evidence of N. R. Nehra, hand-writing expert. He alsoreferred to the evidence of N. R. Nehra, hand-writing expert. Forensic Science Laboratory of questioned writings showing that the signatures on the letter DW 7/1 as well ason the cheques in question were not that of Radhey Shyam for reasons detailed by himin his report. He argued that in this case, the signatures on the letter as well as on thecheques were materially different and the forgery was apparent on the tenor of theinstrument and that the Bank did not act in good faith; the appellant-Bank wronglydebited respondents account. He relied on Supreme Court decisions in Canara Bankv. Canara Sales Corporation and Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 1603 and Bihta Co-operativedevelopment and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. and Anr v. Bank of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 1967sc 389. ( 8 ) NO strait-jacket formula can be laid down to cover each case on negligence orabsence of good faith of the Bank and the question of negligence is to be decided on thefacts of each case as held by the Supreme Court in Bank of Maharashtra case (supra ). Inthe case at hand the evidence on record clearly reveals that only on 27. 10. 1974 a chequebook containing 100 cheque forms was issued by the Bank to the respondent and thesame was not fully utilised and on 5. 11. 1974 the Bank entertained another letter ofrequest for issuance of cheque book and without any verification fresh cheque book wasissued; on the same day a cheque of Rs. 20,000. 00 was debited to the account of therespondent and another cheque of Rs. 25,000. 00 was debited on the subsequent day. Ifthe Bank officials had exercised the diligence and remained slightly vigilant, they couldhave at least checked with the respondents before issuance of the said cheque book on5. 11. 1974 rather than sending a letter and seeking acknowledgement on 7. 11. 1974. DWI Avinash Chai. der, working as Special Assistant stated that Mr. J. K. Gautam was theofficer of the Bank who was entrusted with the job of verifying signatures on chequesin the current account department, who was on leave on 5th and 6/11/1974 and he was deputed in his place, and he claimed to have verified the signatures on therequest letter as well as on the disputed cheques. J. K. Gautam was theofficer of the Bank who was entrusted with the job of verifying signatures on chequesin the current account department, who was on leave on 5th and 6/11/1974 and he was deputed in his place, and he claimed to have verified the signatures on therequest letter as well as on the disputed cheques. DW 5, Y. K. Sethi, who was working as a token clerk in the Bank stated that it was his first working day after transfer fromanother branch and the cheques in question were being above Rs. 10,000. 00 the same weregot nitialled by the Branch Manager. He further admitted that the cheque Exhibit D2was accepted at 2. 15 p. m. on that day. Above facts clearly show, that the Bank failed todischarge successfully the onus placed on it regarding the plea of good faith or absenceof negligence on their part. The learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the Bank hasto suffer for its lapse. ( 9 ) THE appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. On 21. 5. 1982 the respondents were permitted to withdraw the decretal amount on furnishing Bank Guaranteeto the satisfaction of the Trial Court for restitution of the amount. Since the appeal hasbeen dismissed the Bank Guarantee furnished by the respondents stands discharged.