The authenticity of signatures on crucial documents and the failure to explain the issuance of a cheque from the defendant's account influenced the court's decision.

Das, J.

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. Kailashahar, North Tripura (now Unakoti) in Money Suit No. 01/2011.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S Deb assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P Roy Barman for the appellant and learned senior counsel, Mr. SM Chakrborty assisted by learned counsel, Ms P Sen, for the respondent.

3. The respondent, as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as 'plaintiff') instituted Money Suit No.1/2011 against the appellant, as defendant (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendant') seeking a decree for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest thereon.

4. The case of the plaintiff in short was that he was a businessman by profession and the defendant was a contractor and they were known to each other. On 09.01.2008 the defendant approached the plaintiff to advance a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- to facilitate him in executing a contract work with an assurance to pay back the amount within six months. The plaintiff agreed and on 10.01.2008 paid the defendant an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- in presence of Haranath Bhattacharee. In the first week of February, 2008 the defendant again approached the plaintiff to advance another amount of Rs.7,25,000/- for completion of his entire contract work and that amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 28.02.2008 in presence of witnesses.

5. On 26.08.2008 the defendant executed a money receipt on a non-judicial stamp in presence of witnesses namely, Chitta Ranjan Paul and Govinda Debnath undertaking to pay back the amount within six months from the date of payment of last amount, i.e. 28.02.2008. As per agreement, the defendant did not make repayment of the amount and hence on 27.03.2009 the plaintiff along with Haranath Bhattachrjee went to the house of the defendant and requested him to pay back the amount immediately. On that date, the plaintiff handed over a cheque bearing No. 0833874 drawn on Tripura Gramin Bank, Ambassa Branch and the cheque was scribed by Haranath Bhattacharjee and was signed by the defendant in presence of the plaintiff and Haranath Bhattacharjee. Plaintiff deposited the cheque for encashment in his account but the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "drawer's signature differs" and "balance not covers". Bank of the plaintiff informed him the position by memo dated 21.05.2009.

6. The plaintiff immediately brought the fact of dishonour of cheque to the notice of the defendant but he made no response. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued demand notice dated 09.06.2009 but still the defendant did not make payment of the amount. The plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Kamalpur and in that criminal case the defendant was acquitted on benefit of doubt. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff instituted the suit for realization of the amount.

7. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant with a view to deprive the plaintiff issued a cheque intentionally putting his signature in a different manner than that of his signature given in the Bank and deceitfully issued the cheque. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant issued money receipt in presence of the witnesses and the defendant was bound to repay the amount. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and cost of the suit.

8. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was contended by the defendant that he did not approach the plaintiff on 09.01.2008 for a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- and did not receive any such amount on 10.01.2008 with the assurance of paying the amount back within six months and a