SHANTANU PAUL Vs. MIRUSINGH PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 3/1/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agartala, West Tripura, Court No.1, in Misc. (Exe) No.04 of 2017 titled as Shantanu Paul v. Sri Misrusingh Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and seeks reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash reported in AIR 1977 SC 1201 .

(2.) Having perused the record so made available, as also heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or erroneous, tendered as incomplete or incorrect appreciation of material on record.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the parties to the lis i.e. the petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in a suit which filed in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya (State of Karnataka) and the subject matter of the said suit being commercial transaction entered into by the plaintiff with defendant, and non-payment of dues in relation thereto, wherein plaintiff alleged the defendant to have approached him for supply of Jaggery at Agartala, on credit basis which was so effected and payments in relation thereto, remitted in part through RTGS/Cheque.