NRIPEN RABHA Vs. AJAY KUMAR PATIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This long pending First Appeal of 2011 is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5th day of September, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji in Money Suit No. 2 of 2006 whereby the suit is decreed with cost for recovery of Rs. 5,78,000/- as rent and the hired vehicle of the plaintiff/respondent herein with pendentilite and further interest from the date of the decree till realization at the rate of 6% per annum, from the defendant/appellant.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that plaintiff/respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle No.AS-22/3388 (709 Bus). The defendant/appellant entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff/respondent on 19.9.2003 to run the Bus on hired basis on payment of Rs. 17,000/- per month. As per the aforesaid agreement, the defendant/appellant took possession of the vehicle on 19.09.2003, but did not pay the rent as per agreement. According to the plaintiff/respondent, he is entitled to get Rs. 5,78,000/- as rent from the defendant/appellant and finding no alternative, had filed the Money Suit No.2/2006. Per contra, the defendant/appellant has contended that the vehicle was in damaged condition. The plaintiff/respondent requested the defendant/appellant to repair the vehicle. Upon such request of the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/appellant repaired the vehicle by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1,12,000/-. On asking for the repairing cost to the plaintiff/respondent, he insisted the defendant/appellant to run the vehicle to realize the cost of repairing and thereafter, to give the share of the profit after meeting the expenses of repairing. Upon such arrangement, the defendant/appellant engaged driver, handyman etc., for plying the bus. The defendant/appellant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- in all to the plaintiff/respondent on various dates, commencing from 06.09.2003, but surprisingly, on 27.03.2005, the plaintiff/respondent came to the house of the defendant/appellant and took back the papers of the vehicle and since then, the defendant/appellant could not run the vehicle and the vehicle is lying at the Courtyard of the defendant/appellant. The defendant/appellant denied the written agreement and stated that the plaintiff/respondent requested him to put his signature on a blank paper for showing that the vehicle was lying at the garage for repairing and to liquidate the loan amount.

(3.) Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: