Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 1355
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tapabrata Chakraborty, Raja Basu Chowdhury, JJ.
Saleha Bibi @ Chhabi & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Asim Kumar Chatterjee – Respondent
FA 80 of 2022 with [IA No.: CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No.CAN 11108 of 2019)]
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Rita Patra,Ms. Puspita Das.
For the Respondent: Mr. Saiful Alam
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 118, (a) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Promissory note - Suit for recovery - Appellants challenged judgment and decree passed - Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,90,000/- paid by plaintiff to predecessor-in-interest of defendant nos. 1 and 2 - Held, It cannot be said that promissory note was not made or drawn for consideration or that learned Judge had erred in not deciding or discussing factum of payment - Challenge raised by appellants as regards plausibility of plaintiff's case cannot be looked into further once execution of promissory note is proved - Appellants have not taken out any application for leading additional evidence - Appellants have neither disclosed nor have been able to demonstrate as to what additional evidence appellants seek to rely - Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.6,90,000/- paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, based on a promissory note executed by the deceased Sk. Piru (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff's case was that the amount was lent for construction and business purposes, and that the promissory note was executed as evidence of this loan (!) (!) .
-
The defendants contested the suit, denying the existence of any loan, the execution of the promissory note, and claiming the document was fabricated to defraud them. They also challenged the consideration and the circumstances of the loan (!) (!) .
-
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the execution of the promissory note had been proved and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.6,90,000/-, leading to a decree in his favor (!) .
-
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the promissory note was admitted into evidence without objection, and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the note was duly executed and supported by consideration (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the presumption under relevant laws favors the validity of the promissory note and the consideration unless rebutted by the defendant, which they failed to do (!) (!) .
-
The defendants did not lead additional evidence or challenge the authenticity of the promissory note during the proceedings, which limited their ability to dispute its validity (!) .
-
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, and clarified that the appellants had not demonstrated any grounds for remand or for leading further evidence (!) (!) .
-
The court also confirmed that the decree remained unsatisfied and that the appellants' challenge to the case's foundation was unfounded given the evidence on record (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of the execution of a promissory note and the legal presumptions supporting its validity in a suit for recovery, provided the document is admitted into evidence without objection and properly supported by evidence (!) (!) .
Let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2018 and 10th September, 2019 respectively passed in Money Suit No. 15 of 2016, on several grounds. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in the instant appeal had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,90,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.
2. The plaint case proceeds on the premise that the plaintiff had a longstanding acquaintance with one Sk. Piru son of Md. Jan. The plaintiff had lent and advanced an amount aggregating Rs.6,90,000/-(Rupees Six Lac Ninety Thousand) only to Sk. Piru for construction of house as also for business purpose. The plaintiff claims to be a retired service holder and had given such amount to Sk. Piru from his retirement benefits.
3. On 19th November, 2013 Sk. Piru executed a promissory note and agreed to repay Rs.6,90,000/- within 11 months from the date of execution of the promissory note to the plaintiff. Sk. Piru did not repay the loan, he expired in the year 2014. The defendants are the legal heirs of Sk. Piru. After the death of Sk. Piru the plaintiff on several occasions, demanded repayment of the loan amount from the legal heirs of Sk. Piru, who had inherited all the moveable and immoveable properties of Sk. Piru, but the defendants refused to repay the loan amount. Hence the suit.
4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants claim that the defendants’ predecessor had never approached the plaintiff at any point of time, for any loan, either for construction of house or for business purpose. No amount was borrowed from the plaintiff. Execution of the promissory note including the figure of outstanding amount indicated in such promissory note is false and fabricated. The purported notice dated 31st May, 2016 demanding repayment, was never served on the defendants. The claim made by the plaintiff is false. As would appear from the above, the contest is not only regarding the execution of promissory note but also regarding advance of Rs.6,90,000/- including requirement of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants to take the loan amount.
5. The learned Judge framed five several issues:
(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action to initiate the instant suit?
(iii) Has the plaintiff any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property?
(iv) Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(v) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
6. The learned Judge took into consideration the evidence of the plaintiff, who himself had deposed in the proceeding as plaintiff witness (hereinafter referred to as PW) 1, the evidence of attesting witness Abhijit Roy, who is also son-in-law of the plaintiff, who deposed as PW 2 and the evidence of Hasibul Hoque, who deposed as PW3. After taking into consideration the above three depositions, the factum of marking of the promissory note as Exhibit-1 and proceeding on the premise that the defendants did not challenge the said document which was marked as exhibit-1, the learned Judge concluded that the plaintiff had proved his case and accordingly, decreed the suit thereby directing the defendants to make payment of Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees Six Lac Ninety Thousand) only to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of the judgment.
7. Being aggrieved the defendants/ appellants have filed this appeal.
8. By an order dated 19th September, 2019 a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court was, inter alia, pleased to stay the aforesaid judgment and decree subject to the appellants depositing the decretal amount. The defendants did not comply with the aforesaid order. By an order dated 6th December, 2019 by reason of non-compliance of the order dated 19th September, 2019, this Hon’ble Court made it clear that there is no subsisting interim order, it is open to the decree-holder to proceed with the execution case
