BIJOY SANKAR ROY Vs. SUJIT AGARWAIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 21.8.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar, Siichar, in Money Appeal No. 2/1999. upholding the judgment and decree. dated 19.2.1999. passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1. Cachar, Silchar, in Money Suit No. 1/ 1997, whereby the plaintiffs' suit was decreed.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal may be set out as follows: The respondent herein instituted Money Suit No. 1/1997 afore - Mentioned seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 30.000.00 (Rupees thirty thousand), with interest, from the defendants, holding them, jointly and severally, liable to make payment of their debts, the case of the plaintiff being. in brief, thus: On 2.7.1995, on the request made by the defendants, the plaintiff casually lent to the defendants a sum of Rs. 30,000.00. the said sum being payable on demand. The defendant No. 1 scribed a hand-note and his younger sister (defendant No. 2) executed the said hand-note, where under the defendant No. 2 took the responsibility of repaying the said loan by her. On the hand-note, so executed by the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 1 signed as a witness. At the time, when the loan was so taken, the defendant No. 1, being a head teacher in a school, was under suspension. On the following day, i.e. on 3.7.1995, the defendant No. 1, again, came to the plaintiff requesting him to give him a further sum of Rs. 10,000.00, as loan. promising to execute a hand-note later on. In good faith, the plaintiff lent a further sum of Rs. 10,000.00 to the defendant No. 1, but no hand-note was executed by the defendants. However, in terms of the hand-note executed earlier, the defendants paid the monthly interest for two months: but, later on, the defendants discontinued to pay the interest on the money so borrowed nor did they make payment of the principal sum. The amount, so taken on loan, rose to a sum of Rs. 78.000.00, which included the principal as well as the interest accrued thereon. As the defendants failed to make payment of the money borrowed by them despite demands raised by the plaintiff, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking recovery of the said amount, with interest pendente lite and future interest on the entire amount.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit, wherein they contended, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, that the document, based on which the suit had been filed, was not a promissory note, they had not executed an hand-note nor did they borrow any money, on loan, from the plaintiff The suit, according to the defendants, deserved to be dismissed.