RFA 100/2001 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The present assailment is vis-a-vis the judgment and order dated 28.06.2011 pass ed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Nagaon, in Money Suit No. 42/1999, dis missing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. I have heard Mr. N Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. None appears for the respondents/defendants. This appeal was admitted on 27.09.2001 and, thereafter, notices thereof were dis patched to the respondents herein by registered post with A/D. The office notes dated 30.10.2001 and 06.12.2001 clearly indicate completion of service of notice on all the respondents. None, however, has entered appearance on their behalf. No prayer for adjournment has been made today as well. Considering the year of r egistration of the appeal, the same is heard today and disposed of accordingly. The appellant/plaintiff’s pleaded version, in short, is that she carries on busi ness in money lending under the name and style of Hindusthan Mortgage Institutio n at Lumding. The firm enjoys a certificate of registration being No.CHIL-A/87/1 , dated 09.04.1987 issued by the Registrar of Money Lenders, Hojai under the rel evant law. Being in need of money, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 (defendant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively in the suit) approached her firm for financial accommodation of R s. 5, 00000/- as loan. AS the proposal was acceptable to the firm, an agreement was executed on 31.12.1995 between the respondent/defendant Nos.1 & 2 on one han d and the plaintiff/appellant on the other, embodying amongst others the stipula tion of interest at the rate of 21.75% per annum on the amount of disbursement. The respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 agreed thereunder to repay the loan in terms of the covenants agreed to by them. In the transaction, the respondent/defendan t Nos. 3 to 5 stood as guarantors. Pursuant to the said agreement, the appellant /plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs. 500000/- as loan. In return, the respondent /defendant Nos. 1 & 2 executed a hand note dated 31.12.1995 promising to repay t he amount with interest at the rate of 21.75% per annum. The respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2, though initially defaulted to relinquish th e debt, they ultimately issued a cheque bearing No. 174940 dated 25.11.1998 for an amount of Rs.8,17,187/- drawn in the United Bank of India, Lumding Branch, wh ich when presented, was dishonoured. This fact was intimated to the appellant/pl aintiff by letter dated 30.11.1998 of her Bank. As all efforts by her and her fi rm failed to retrieve the amount of loan with interest thereon, she filed the su it praying for a decree for an amount of Rs. 9,16,876/- with further interest fr om 01.11.1999. Summons in the suit were issued to all the defendants and on the receipt thereof , the respondent/defendants Nos. 1 & 2 filed a petition on 03.02.2000, admitting that they had borrowed the aforementioned amount from the plaintiff/appellant d ue to urgent need of money. They also undertook to repay the entire loan amount by installment basis. They assured that in view of this stand they would not fil e any counter-affidavit in any court in respect of the amount due and owing from them vis-a-vis the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff examined three witnesses, including the Manager of the firm i.e. Shri Arup Chowdhury as PW 1. T wo other witnesses included her husband Shri Parimal Acharjee. Neither any writt en statement was filed by any of the defendants nor any evidence either oral or documentary was produced by them. By the impugned judgment and order, the suit, however, has been dismissed. Mr. Choudhury, has argued that it being apparent on the face of the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff’s ca se had been wholly admitted by them, the learned trial Court fell in error in di smissing the suit. According to him, in the face of this unequivocal admission, the purported observation of the learned trial Court that the signatures of the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint did not tally with those in the general power of attorney, Ext. 7, dated 31.12.1994 executed in favour of her husband, Sri Par imal Aharjee, PW 3 was of no relevance and this having vitiated the judgment and order, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also dismissed, as wholly insignificant, the finding of the learned trial Court that the signatu res of the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 appearing on the petition of admissio n were different from those in the hand note dated 31.12.1995. As the learned tr ial Court did not reject the admission made by the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 vis-a-vis the appellant/plaintiff’s claim made in the suit, these findings be side being not tenable on a mere perusal of the documents involved, is also of n o bearing, he urged. In view of the clear admission recorded in the petition fil ed by the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Choudhury insisted that the suit ought to be decreed in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short hereafter referred to as the Code). The pleadings on record as well as the evidence available have been duly analyse d. The petition dated 03.02.2000 filed by the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 & 2 re cords a clear and an unambiguous admission by them of the claim of the appellant /plaintiff. They, thereby also undertook to repay the outstanding amount by way of installments as may be amicably fixed. At no point of time, the respondent/de fendant Nos. 1 & 2 did either question their signatures on the application or th e hand note dated 31.12.1995. This fully accords with their unreserved admission that they had taken loan of Rs. 5 lac from the appellant/plaintiff and were in default in liquidating the same. The appellant/plaintiff has owned her signature in the plaint and as a matter of fact, the deed of Power of Attorney executed b y her in favour of her husband, Sri Parimal Acharjee, PW 3, as such, is of no be aring whatsoever vis-a-vis the issues involved in the suit. In other words, even assuming without admitting that the signature of the appell ant in the Power of Attorney does not tally with the one in the plaint, it ifso facto does not render her case as narrated therein untrustworthy. The learned tr ial Court, as the impugned judgment and order reveals, had adopted a hyper sensi tive approach dehors the materials on record resulting in the impugned judgment and order. On a scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the findin gs recorded by it, cannot be sustained as tenable. The appeal has merit and has to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned ju dgment and order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Nagaon, in Money Suit No. 42/1999 is hereby set aside. The appellant/plaintiff’s suit is decreed. No costs.