JUDGMENT :

AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 02.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai in Money Appeal No. 1/2016, thereby reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.03.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang at Mangaldai in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in Money Suit No. 14/2012.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he instituted a money suit being Money Suit No. 14/2012 before the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang at Mangaldai against the present respondents/defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,000,00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) (Rs. 1,80,000/- principal and Rs. 20,000/- interest), which amount the husband (since deceased) of the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 Late Dilip Ghosh borrowed for the purposes of development of his business establishment and for his treatment in Mumbai by executing two hand-notes, dated 01.05.2010 and 30.12.2011 respectively.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents by filing written statements. In the written statements, the defendants stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount and denied that Late Dilip Ghosh borrowed the purported amounts by executing any hand-notes in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and denied the signatures on the hand-notes to be that of Late Dilip Ghosh.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for considerations and decisions:

“1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff paid Rs. 40,000.00 as loan to Late Dilip Ghosh, the father of the defendant No. 2 on 01.05.2010 who accepted the same by executing a hand note and again on 30.12.2011 the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,40,000.00 to Late Dilip Ghosh, who accepted the same by executing a hand note and promising to repay the loan with interest on demand?

3. Whether late Dilip Ghosh executed the hand note for accepting the money from the plaintiff?

4. Whether the defendants defaulted in repayment of the total amount of money of Rs. 1,80,000.00 to the plaintiff after demand of the same to the plaintiff?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief/ relives as prayed for?”

6. The appellant /plaintiff examined 2 witnesses including himself as PW-1 and exhibited 2 documents (hand-notes) as Exhibit-A and Exhibit- B while the respondents/defendants examined 3 witnesses including respondent No. 1 as DW-1. The respondents/defendants exhibited no document.

7. The learned trial court after conclusion of trial passed the judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2016, holding that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- without any interest on it. However, it was observed that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to interest @ 5% from the date of the suit to the date of the decree.

8. Being highly aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang, Mangaldai, the respondents preferred a money appeal being Money Appeal No. 1/2016 before the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 02.03.2017, set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.03.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang, Mangaldai. Hence, the instant second appeal.

9. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2018 had admitted the appeal for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court holding a view that PW-1 and PW-2 contradicted each other in adducing evidence so far the place of 2nd transaction and executing the hand note vide Ext-B, when PW-1 did not specifically