Sri Madan Mohan Saha vs Sri Nirendra Saha
2026 Latest Caselaw 1024 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Madan Mohan Saha vs Sri Nirendra Saha on 25 February, 2026

Author: T.Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                               RFA 12 OF 2024
Sri Madan Mohan Saha,
S/o Lt. Nishi Kanta Saha, resident of 60/B/12,
H.C. Banerjee Lane, Haridas Avenue, Koonagar,
Hoogly, West Bengal-712235.
                                                                   ... Appellant
                                   Vs.

Sri Nirendra Saha,
S/o Lt. Prasanna Kumar Saha,
Resident of Krishnanagar, Thakur Palli Road,
P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,
Dist. West Tripura.
                                                              .... -Respondent.


 For the appellant            : Mr. Dipak Deb, Advocate.

 For the respondent           : Mr. Ratnadeep Paul, Advocate.
 Date of hearing & date of
 Delivery of judgment         : 25.02.2026

 Whether fit for reporting    : No

          HON'BLE JUSTICE DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD
         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

                     JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

This appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is

directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2023 and 12.12.2023

respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.4, West

Tripura, Agartala in Case No. M.S. 25/2019.

2. The short facts as emerged from the plaint of the original plaintiff

[the respondent herein] are that the plaintiff and the defendant are well known

to each other and they had a cordial relation with each other out of business

transactions. The defendant had a shop at Agartala Jagat Bazar, Hariganga

Basak Road under the name and style as "Joram Udyog". He had closed the

said shop in the year 2017 and left Agartala for Kolkata. It is averred that prior

to his leaving from Agartala, the defendant in urgent need of money had taken

a loan of Rs.14,00,000/- [Rupees fourteen lakhs] only from the plaintiff for his

business purpose in two separate spells. On the first spell, i.e. on 16.06.2016,

he took an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and on the second spell, i.e. on

20.06.2016, took an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with a promise to return the said

amount to the plaintiff by 31.10.2017. But, the defendant did not repaid the

loan amount to the plaintiff by that stipulated date. The plaintiff, considering

such state of affairs, entered into an notarized agreement with the defendant on

25.02.2017 and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the

defendant issued three cheques- one bearing No.842645, dated 04.06.2018, for

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- maintained in the State Bank of India, Agartala

Branch, (2) bearing Cheque No.133569, dated 04.06.2018, for an amount of

3,00,000/- and (3) Cheque bearing No.186257, dated 04.06.2018, for an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- maintained in Axix Bank Ltd. Agartala Branch. As

per the terms of the agreement, the aforesaid cheques were kept by the

plaintiff as security for the aforesaid loan amount of Rs.14,00,000/-. It was

also agreed between the parties that if within a period of one year from the

date of agreement the plaintiff demands the aforesaid money from the

defendant, the defendant would be bound to return the said money within one

month from the date of demand, otherwise the plaintiff would have the liberty

to encash the aforesaid three cheques and realise the aforesaid loan amount.

Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to return the aforesaid

loan amount of Rs.14,00,000/- by serving a legal notice dated 06.02.2018

through his Advocate, but the loan money was not returned back to the

plaintiff within one month from 06.02.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff as per the

terms and conditions of the agreement presented the said cheques on

04.06.2018 with the defendant‟s bankers but the said cheques were

dishonoured and returned to the plaintiff due to insufficient fund in the

account of the defendant. It is also asserted in the plaint that as per the

agreement, the extended period of two years to return the loan amount to the

plaintiff was ended on 25.02.2019. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff served

more two legal notices- one on 25.06.2018 and another on 18.03.2019 to the

defendant, but there was no response from the defendant side.

3. It is further averred that the cause of action first arose on

06.03.2018 when the defendant did not return the said amount after a lapse of

one month from the date of demand was made by the plaintiff through legal

notice dated 06.02.2018 and the second cause of action arose on 25.02.2019

when the extended period of two years to return the said loan amount came to

an end as per agreement dated 25.02.2017. Hence, the plaintiff filed the instant

suit seeking a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.14,00,000/-

along with interest @ 9% per annum from 06.03.3018 till realization.

4. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying

all the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. In the written statement,

the defendant admitted the fact that he issued three cheques as security for

payment of a loan amount. He averred that he repaid the entire loan amount to

the plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff

intentionally harassed him and gave pressure upon him for encashment even

after payment of the loan amount. His further plea was that a false case was

filed against him.

5. Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, the learned

trial Court framed as many as five issues, which read thus--

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing of the suit?

(iii) Whether the defendant issued 3 (three) numbers of (a) cheque bearing number 842645 dated 04.06.2018 of of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-,

(b)cheque bearing number 133569 dated 04.06.2018 of a sum of Rs.

3,00,000/- and (c)cheque bearing number 186257 dated 04.06.2018 of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in order to discharge of his legally enforceable debt of Rs. 14,00,000/- as per the agreement dated 25.02.2017?

(iv) Whether the defendant has paid the entire amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- within a period of one year as per the agreement dated 25.02.2017?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree/reliefs as prayed for?

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and another

Sri Dilip Sarkar as PW-2 and some documents have been proved and marked

exhibits. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also

examined another witness as DW-2, but did not adduce any documentary

evidence.

7. After perusing the pleadings of the parties and upon evaluating

the evidence on record, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the

original plaintiff.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and decree, the original defendant, i.e. the appellant herein has approached this

Court with this first appeal.

9. Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and also heard Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

10. Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned trial Court without applying the mind wrongly and illegally has come

to a conclusion in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He also submits

that the notarized agreement is not a sole evidence to come to a definite

finding that the appellant had borrowed the loan amount from the respondent

as the said agreement was not a registered document and the Scribe and other

attesting witnesses were not examined by the respondent-plaintiff. According

to learned counsel, the appellant had repaid the entire amount to the

respondent well in time and the respondent intentionally put pressure upon the

appellant to face an unnecessary harassment and therefore, he prays for setting

aside the impugned judgement of the learned Court below.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. Paul appearing for the

respondent-plaintiff unequivocally submits that the learned Court below has

rightly adjudicated the matter and finally came to an affirmative conclusion on

the basis of cogent and convincing evidence as produced from the side of the

respondent-plaintiff. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

12. We have analytically gone through the entire circumstances

which led the plaintiff-respondent to file a money recovery suit against the

defendant-appellant. We have also perused the evidence adduced by both the

parties and the decision of learned Court below very closely. It is the case of

the original plaintiff that towards the repayment of the said amount, the

defendant had issued three cheques, however, those cheques were dishonoured

when presented by the plaintiff for realization. From the evidence of the

plaintiff as he deposed on oath as PW-1, it comes to light that there was a

good relation between either of the parties and on this auspicious relation to

meet urgent business needs, the defendant-appellant borrowed the alleged

amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent on some conditions.

When the appellant-defendant could not make the repayment of the loan

amount within the prescribed period as was stipulated by the plaintiff-

respondent, they made a notarized agreement in between them framing some

terms and conditions but still, the respondent showed his inability to repay the

said loan to the plaintiff. It is evident from the Exbt. 8, 9 and 10, the legal

notices issued to the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff-respondent had

asked the defendant-appellant through his advocate to repay the said loan

amount within the prescribed period from date of receipt of the said notices, in

that perspective also there was no repayment from the side of the defendant-

appellant. Even, we noticed that when the said cheques were presented before

the bankers, the same were dishonoured due to insufficient fund of the

respondent. The three return Memos, Exbt. 3, 4 and 6 amply proved the fact of

dishonour of cheques of the appellant-defendant showing the remark of

„insufficient fund‟. More so, the defendant has admitted in his written

statement and he himself issued the aforesaid three cheques to the plaintiff.

13. Now, coming to the aspects as to whether the defendant has a

substantial defence to the plaintiff‟s case or not. As it revealed from the cross-

examination of the DW-1, i.e. the original defendant, he clearly admitted that

he received Rs.14,00,000/- as loan from the plaintiff in several instalments in

the year 2026 for his business investment. He further without any hesitation

divulged that a notarized agreement was executed between himself and the

plaintiff with a promise to pay back the entire loan amount within a period of

one year. Even, he also unequivocally confessed during cross-examination

that he issued the alleged three cheques in favour of the plaintiff. More

interestingly, the defendant voluntarily stated in his cross-examination that he

paid back the entire amount in cash later on, but he did not maintain any

written acknowledgment on good faith due to cordial relationship with the

plaintiff. DW-2, the then employee of the defendant deposed in the same tune

of the defendant.

14. In view of the above deposition of the defendant, we cannot

disbelieve the affairs of money lending to the defendant by the plaintiff as

because as we see from the said three cheques given to the plaintiff, the

defendant had signed in all the three cheques and when those were presented

before the bankers they refused to encash the amount towards the plaintiff due

to insufficient funds. The defendant never raised any plea that the cheques do

not bear his signatures. Therefore, this cogent and convincing evidence show

that the defendant could not make out his case successfully.

15. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is

obvious that the defendant has no defence to offer the plaintiff‟s claim.

Therefore, we are in opinion that the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-

defendant does not inspire confidence or meet standard of „preponderance of

probability‟. Consequently, the existence of legally enforceable liability of

appellant is presumed.

16. In the above perspective, we do not find any manifest error of law

and procedure or perversity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the

appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed.

Send down the LCRs.

         S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J                              DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J



SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH
             Date: 2026.02.27 17:33:36 +05'30'
      sanjay