1. Heard Mr. Saurav Kataki, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Indraneel Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 10/2006, which was partly decreed on contest. By the said judgment, the respondent- plaintiff was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-, jointly and severally, from the defendants, with a further direction that if the amount is not realized within 60 days, it would carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.

3. The appellants in the present appeal were arrayed as the defendants No.1 and 2 and the respondent herein was the plaintiff in the suit.

4. The respondent/plaintiff had projected in the paint that the defendant No. 3, who was an officer of defendant No. 1 Company posted at Guwahati, had approached the plaintiff on 14.05.2004 for a loan of Rs.18,00,000/- as their Guwahati Office urgently needed the money. It was promised that the money would be returned as early as possible. The plaintiff paid the amount by a demand draft of Rs.18,00,000/- in the name of the defendant No.1 Company. The defendant No. 1 Company did not return the amount, as such, the plaintiff by letter dated 28.03.2005, requested the defendant No. 2 to refund the amount. In reply, the defendant No. 1 Company, instead of refunding money, by a letter dated 02.04.2005, informed the plaintiff that the said money was accepted by them as the sale price of two old machines, i.e. (i) one old Soil Compactor, and (ii) one old Tandem Vibrate Roller. It was projected that as the plaintiff had not purchased any old machine from the defendant No. 1 Company, a demand notice dated 17.05.2005 was issued and thereafter, as he did not receive back his money, the suit was instituted.

5. By filing the written statement, the defendant No. 1 Company projected that the plaintiff had purchased one Ingersoll-Rand, Model Idd 90 Vibratory, Tandem and one Greaves Bomeg Vibratory Roller Model BW212 D from the defendant No. 1 Company at Rs.18,00,000/- vide Sale letter dated 14.05.2004. It was stated that the representative of the plaintiff had accepted the delivery of those two old machineries by making endorsement on the body of the said sale letter. The defendant No. 1 Company denied taking any loan from the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(i). Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and in law and facts?

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

(iii). Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(iv). Whether the defendant No. 1 received Rs.18,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Bank Draft No. 295943 dated 14.05.2004 promising to return the amount as early as possible?

(v). Whether the plaintiff paid Rs.18 Lacs to the defendant as price of two old machines?

(vi). Whether the defendant is liable to pay interest on Rs.18 Lacs @ 18% P.A.?

(vii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Rs.23,40,000/- and interest?

7. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and the defendants examined (i) Sri Dinesh Hari Ram Valecha, Director of defendant No. 1 Company as DW-1, and (ii) Sri Shyam Bulbule, Senior Accountant of defendant No. 1 Company as DW-2. It would be worth mentioning that in the plaint, the defendant No. 1 Company was Valecha Engineering Ltd. The Managing Director of defendant No. 1 Company was arrayed as defendant No. 2. One M.H. Mehta, who was the then Project Manager (Finance) of defendant No. 1 Company was arrayed as defendant No. 3. The written statement on behalf of all the defendants was signed and filed by the said defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 3 had submitted evidence on affidavit in the suit as DW-1 on 29.04.2008. However, by or