(1.) This rule was issued on the prayer of the defendant to show cause why a decree passed by the Munsif, Third Court, Narainganj, in Small Cause Court jurisdiction should not be set aside. The plaintiff opposite patty sued to recover Rs. 50 from the present petitioner on the basis of an agreement entered into on 26 of Agrahayan 1349 B.S. It is now conceded that on 26 Agrahayan 1349, the present petitioner borrowed Rs. 400 from the opposite party and executed a document in which he acknowledged having borrowed the money and agreed to repay the loan in eight annual instalments of Rs. 50 each. The opposite party asserted that Rs. 100 Had been paid in respect of the instalments for 1349 and 1350 B.S. and he claimed in the present suit the instalment for the year 1351 B.S. The present petitioner asserted that Rs. 200 had been paid and he denied that any sum was due. There was an endorsement on the back of the bond which originally showed that Rs. 200 had been paid. This had been altered into Rs. 100. The learned Munsif held that Rs. 100 had in fact been paid and that the instalment for the year 1351 was still due.
(2.) Mr. Pakrashi for the petitioner has urged three points. He has argued first that there was no cause of action inasmuch as the third instalment was not due on the date on which the suit was instituted. He has further argued that the Court below ought to have found that the amount j5aid, in respect of which an endorsement was made on the back of the bond, was Rs. 200. He has also argued that instalments ought to have been granted by the Court below and ought to be granted by this Court sitting as a Court of revision.
(3.) With regard to the first of these arguments, the document simply provides that an instalment of Rs. 50 should be repaid each year. It is clear from the plaint that the plaintiff interpreted this as meaning Rs. 50 in each Bengali year and that the first instalment was due to be paid before the end of the year 1349 B.S., the second before the end of the year 1350 B.S. and so on. Mr. Pakrashi contends that the phrase each year means within one year from the date of the execution of the document and within one year from each subsequent anniversary of the document. This defence was not taken in the Court below and the learned Munsif was not called upon to deal with this argument. In my opinion the document is capable of the interpretation which the plaintiff put upon it and it is not obvious that the interpretation which Mr. Pakrashi seeks to put upon it is the only possible interpretation. In this view inasmuch as the matter was not agitated in the Court below I do not consider I am entitled to go into the matter in revision and hold that the decision of the Court below was wrong.