SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Tri) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
ARINDAM LODH, J.
Sri Arindam Ghosh, S/o Lt. Arabinda Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
Sri Abhijit Debnath, S/o Sri Ashwini Kumar Debnath - Respondent
RSA 48 of 2015
Decided On : 12-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate, Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Headnote:

Money Suit - Non-compliance of Order VII Rule 17 of CPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a money suit for realization of Rs.43,250 from the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed the judgment. The defendant appealed against the Appellate Court's decision.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court's judgment was reversed by the Appellate Court, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the reversal judgment suffered from non-appreciation/misappropriation of the evidence in terms of Order VII, Rule 17 of CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the plaintiff had proved the debt of Rs. 43,250 owed by the defendant through documentary evidence and the defendant's admission. The Court also held that the trial Judge had made a serious error in making out a new case not pleaded by any of the parties to the suit.

Final Decision: The present second appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own respective costs.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Money Appeal No. 01/2014 wherein the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar in M.S. 01/2013.

2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for convenience) instituted a money suit being No.MS 01/2013 for realization of Rs.43,250/- from the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). In the plaint, the following reliefs are sought for:

“(a) A decree for realization of money amounting to Rs.43,250/- only payable by the defendant.

(b) Interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 09.02.2012.

(c) Cost of the Suit

Any other relief/reliefs which the plaintiff is legally entitled to?”

3. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that being proprietor of “Webcom Computer” he entered into business transactions with the defendant. The defendant in course of business used to purchase computers and papers and also used to make payment against the purchase. In course of such transactions, the defendant did not pay Rs.43,250/-(Rupees forty three thousand two hundred fifty) as on 04.08.2009. The plaintiff made repeated requests for payment of the said sum of Rs.43,250/- and also sent a letter to the defendant to pay the same when the defendant by his reply dated 20.02.2012 requested the plaintiff to accommodate some reasonable time for payment of the said amount with a further request to give details of the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff on 16.03.2012 as per his accounts books made all the details available to the defendant. Since the defendant did not pay any amount, the plaintiff again sent a letter on 05.06.2012 requesting to make the payment of dues within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of the said letter but no payment was made. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued a demand notice on 04.07.2012 and on receipt of the said notice, the defendant replied that the plaintiff is not entitled to get Rs.43,250/-.

4. On the above facts, the suit was instituted for realization of Rs. 43.250/- as aforestated.

5. On receipt of the summons, the defendant being appeared, submitted written statement denying the fact and stated that the plaintiff is entitled to get only Rs.13,345/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred forty five).

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(I) Is the suit maintainable?

(II) Is there cause of action of the suit?

(III) Is the suit barred by limitation?

(IV) Is the plaintiff entitled to get any relief?

(V) To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled?

7. Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide judgment and decree dated 07.07.2014 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs. 43,250/-. First Appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 43,250/- and reversed the judgment of the trial Court thereby.

8. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present second appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case records. The plaintiff in order to prove his case laid evidence by adducing two witnesses including himself. He also has exhibited 6(six) nos. of documents viz. Exbt.1-Copy of books of accounts, Exbt.2-letter dated 09.02.2012 addressed to the defendant, Exbt.3-letter dated 05.06.2012 addressed to the plaintiff written by the defendant, Exbt.4-letter dated 20.02.2012 which is the reply to the plaintiff’s letter dated 09.02.2012 (Exbt.2), Exbt.5-Advocate’s Notice and Exbt.6-reply to the Advocate’s Notice by the defendant.

10. The defendant to substantiate his case, examined himself as D.W.1 and he has exhibited copy of money deposit slip dated 03.07.2008 wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top