SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent though served.

2. This second appeal is preferred against the concurrent judgement and decree dated 12/07/2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Money Appeal No. 9/2006 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, thereby affirming the judgement and decree of dismissal dated 22/08/2003 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karimganj in Money Suit No. 9/1995.

3. The appellant herein as plaintiff had instituted Money Suit No. 9/1995 interalia praying for a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,11,305/- from the defendant along with interest pendentilite @ 12.5% per annum as well as future interest to be paid at the same rate besides praying for other consequential reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiff, as projected in the plaint, is that the defendant was carrying on with tea business with him during the period 1992-93 and as per accounts maintained by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 2,83,350/- was the outstanding dues, being the price of tea, as on 29/04/1993. According to the plaintiff, after adjustment and payment of all other amount, a sum of Rs. 1,11,305/- stood as the outstanding liability of the defendant payable to the plaintiff as price of tea. When the defendant had failed to pay the said amount, the plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount.

5. On receipt of summons in connection with the Money Suit No. 9/1995, the defendant/respondent had entered appearance and contested the same by filing written statement. Besides taking various plea questioning the maintainability of the suit, the defendant had also categorically denied that the claim of the plaintiff that he was engaged in tea business with the plaintiff during the period 1992-93. The defendant has also denied any liability on his part to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,11,305/- to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's case is totally false, fabricated, baseless and imaginary. The defendant has also denied that there was any cause of action for filing the suit. It is also the pleaded stand of the defendant that the plaintiff, who is his maternal uncle, used to engage the defendant to make delivery and supply of tea to various customers of the plaintiff through the Mini Truck which was purchased by the defendant after obtaining loan from the United Bank of India, Sarisa Branch, Karimganj for his livelihood. When the plaintiff became irregular in making payment of the remuneration -cum- hire charge of the vehicle to the defendant, he had informed the plaintiff that he was not interested to carry on with the delivery job under the plaintiff and had accordingly left the engagement. On such decision of the defendant, the plaintiff became furious and took control of the vehicle of the defendant by holding out a threat that he will not return the vehicle to the defendant. However, with great difficulties and with the intervention of the relatives, the defendant could recover the vehicle but the plaintiff did not pay his remuneration-cum-hire charges from the month of October, 1992 to April, 1993. Having meted out such harsh treatment to the defendant, the plaintiff had instituted the suit with the intention to cause further harassment to the defendant by making false and baseless statement. The defendant had also raised categorical objection under Order 7 Rule 17 of the CPC on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the eye of law.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court had framed two issues which are as follows :-

"(i) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of CPC ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,11,305/- from the defendant ?"

7. During trial, the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The plaintiff had placed heavy reliance on a docum