IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that admissions by the parties and the authenticity of documents play a crucial role in determining liability for loan repayment.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present case against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,82,077/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the month of December, 2009, the defendant had approached the plaintiff and informed that the defendant is in urgent need of money as loan for business purposes and the defendant had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.13,78,000/-on different dates from 8th December, 2009 to 21st March, 2010 and the defendant has also executed receipts with respect to the amounts received by the defendant.

2. Out of the total amount, the defendant has repaid only a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-. Initially, the plaintiff had issued notice to the defendant on 18th April, 2012 calling upon the defendant for payment of the amount along with interest but the plaintiff finds some mistakes in the said notice, the plaintiff has withdrawn the said notice and issued a fresh notice on 16th July, 2012, calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,82,077/-. Though the notice was duly served upon the defendant but the defendant had neither returned the amount nor had sent any reply to the notice, accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The defendant had entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement wherein the defendant has taken the plea that the suit is barred by law, there is no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the defendant has not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendant has admitted that the defendant has received an amount of Rs. 2,92,000/-in tranches on the different dates and the defendant has repaid a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-which comprises of a principal competent of Rs.1,00,000/-and the share of the plaintiff’s profit of 6% thereon. The defendant has also admitted that as regard to the balance amount of Rs.1,92,000/-, the defendant is ready and willing to pay the said amount together with the agreed share of the plaintiff’s profit at the rate of 6%. The defendant has denied with regard to a sum of Rs.14,82,077/-due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

i. Whether the suit lacks cause of action or does not have jurisdiction as alleged by the Defendant in his Written Statement?

ii. Was there any agreement oral or written entered into between the parties or that there was any jural relationship between the parties as alleged by the Defendant in his Written Statement?

iii. Whether the documents annexed to the plaint are forged, fabricated and manufactured or that the signatures of the defendant was procured by perpetrating fraud and on false and fictitious pretext as alleged by the Defendant is his Written Statement?

iv. Whether the quantum of Rs. 13,78,000/-was lent to the Defendant as advance by the plaintiff as stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 14,82,077/-as due and liability of the Defendant as on 30th July, 2012 as stated in paragraph 5 of the Plaint?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim interest and interest upon judgment at 18% per annum stated in paragraph 5 of the Plaint?

vii. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled?

5. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and during his evidence, altogether 20 (twenty) documents were exhibited as Exhibit–A to Exhibit-T which are as follows:

Exhibit – A: Copy of a money receipt dated 8th December, 2009, prepared by the plaintiff and signed by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, of Rs. 32,000/-.

Exhibit – B: Copy of a money receipt prepared by the plaintiff, dated 15th December, 2009, for a sum of Rs. 9,74,000/-which was duly signed by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar.

Exhibit – C: Copy of the seizure list dated 28th November, 2011, issued by the Camac Street P.S., which shows the details of all t