Munish Kumar Sharma vs Anmesh Kumar Rai

Sr. No.,Date,Amount

1.,22.03.2013,"Rs.2,00,000/-(Cash)

2.,23.03.2013,"Rs.1,30,000/-(Cash)

3.,02.04.2013,"Rs.1,20,000/-(Cash)

4.,04.09.2013,"Rs.3,00,000/-(Cash)

5.,15.10.2013,"Rs.1,15,000/-(Cash)

6.,21.10.2013,"Rs.35,000/-(Cash)

7.,22.10.2013,"Rs.71,000/-(Cheque)

8.,22.10.2013,"Rs.1,65,000/-(Cash)

9.,24.10.2013,"Rs.2,50,000/-(Cash)

10.,24.12.2013,"Rs.1,00,000/-(Cash)

11.,27.12.2013,"Rs.30,000/-(Cheque)

,,"Total Rs.15,16,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen

Lacs and Sixteen

Thousand Only)

The relevant discussion of the trial court in this regard is contained in paras 14 to 16 of the impugned judgment, and these paras read as under:-",,

“Issue No.1,,

The onus of this issue is on the plaintiff. The defendant has not denied that loan of Rs.14,90,000/- through cheques was granted to him and an",,

agreement on 30.01.2013 was executed between the parties. However, it is the defence of the defendant that the entire loan amount was repaid",,

between 22.03.2013 to 27.12.2013 by cash and cheques. The plaintiff has not disputed having received amounts of Rs.71,000/- on 22.10.2013 and Rs.",,

30,000/- on 27.12.2013 through cheques. However, he had deposed that these amounts were not paid towards the loan amount. It is the case of",,

defendant himself that parties were having further bank transactions with each other for mutual financial needs. Further, the total amount mentioned in",,

para 5 of the written statement is Rs.15,16,000/-. In cross- examination, DW1 has deposed that there is no interest component in the total amount of",,

Rs.15,16,000/-. It is unbelievable that defendant would have paid more than the loan amount to the plaintiff. I find the testimony of PW1 reliable and",,

trustworthy. The courier receipt-Ex.DW1/B shows the sender's name as 'Rakesh Kumar'. Thus, the letter dated 28.08.2015 was not sent by the",,

defendant. Had it been so, the courier receipt- Ex.DW1/B would have shown the sender's name as that of the plaintiff. Similarly, the postal receipt-",,

Ex.DW1/D shows the name of the sender as 'Pankaj Kumar'.,,

Thus, it has not been proved that letters dated 28.08.2015 and 03.11.2015 were sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant did not file any",,

police complaint or case against the plaintiff for not returning his cheques and for not issuing the cash receipts.,,

The defendant in his written statement has categorically stated that after the loan amount had been paid, parties were having further bank",,

transactions with each other for mutual financial needs. However, the defendant has failed to lead evidence to prove the same. In his cross-",,

examination, DW1 has admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that there were any bank transactions between the parties after",,

27.12.2013. Had there been any bank transactions between the parties after 27.12.2013, it would not have been difficult for defendant to produce the",,

documentary evidence in this regard. The testimony of the defendant does not inspire confidence. The defendant has admitted the execution of the,,

agreement dated 30.01.2013 wherein the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 1.5% per month on the total loan amount.,,

The plaintiff has been able to prove this issue. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.22,94,600/- from the defendant.",,

However, the pendente lite and future interest claimed @ 18% p.a. is on higher side. The plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8%",,

p.a. This issue is decided accordingly.â€​,,

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant sought to argue that there were other transactions between the parties as reflected from the bank,,

account filed by the respondent/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6, but be that as it may, that even if there were other transactions, the issue is not that whether",,

there were other banking transactions between the parties but the issue as to whether the appellant/defendant had repaid the loan amount in cash as,,

stated by him, and as already discussed in detail above that no credible evidence, much less credible documentary evidence, was led and proved by the",,

appellant/defendant to show repayment of the loan in cash by him to the respondent/plaintiff.,,

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.",,