RSA 72/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, in Money App eal No.19/2006, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by him has been dism issed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learne d Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, in Title Suit No.17/2001 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted the said suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest contending inter alia that on 05.08.1998 the plain tiff as requested by the defendant extended the loan of Rs.80,000/-, for which t he defendant executed the hand note promising to repay the same with interest. A ccording to the plaintiff despite the repeated request made, as the amount has n ot been paid, he has filed the suit for recovery of the said amount with interes t. The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement conten ding inter alia that on 01.07.2001 while he was waiting in the road side near th e temple under the Hailakandi Police Station for vehicle, one auto-rickshaw havi ng two unknown passengers stopped there and asked the defendant to board, which the defendant comply and thereafter he was taken to Matijuri, the house of one p erson on gun point and forced him to put his signature on two documents, one in favour of Md. Moin Uddin Barbhuiya and the other in favour of the plaintiff show ing taking loan of Rs.85,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively on 25.11.1998 and 05 .08.1998. According to the defendant, he was compelled to put signature on those documents having revenue stamp of Re.1/- each and on non-judicial stamp paper v alued at Rs.10/-. It is also the case of the defendant that a complaint case was being CR No.619/2001 was filed, which was pending on the date when the written statement was filed. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, fr amed the following issues for consideration and decision:- (i) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in the present form and manner? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the signature of the answering defendant was taken on the suit h and note by extortion? (v) Whether the defendant took a loan of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff by e xecuting the hand note? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? (vii) To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled? The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences adduced by th e parties decreed the suit by disbelieving the story put forward by the defendan t of coercing him to execute a hand note dated 05.08.1998 (Ext.-1). The learned Trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved the M oney Appeal No.19/2006 was filed by the defendant, which has also been dismissed . Hence the present appeal. Mr. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submits that as in Ext .-1 hand note signature of the defendant was obtained by coercion, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree on the basis of the said hand note and as such the learned Courts below committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff . It has also been submitted that it is evident from the judgments and decrees p assed by the learned Courts below that the complaint case being C.R. No.619/2001 was pending and hence the learned Courts below ought to have waited till the di sposal of the said complaint case. Both the learned Courts below have recorded the finding of fact about th e execution of the Ext.-1 hand note, which is dated 05.08.1998. The story put fo rward by the defendant about coercing him to put his signature in a document on a date in the year 2001 in Ext.-1 showing to be executed on 05.08.1998, was also disbelieved by both the learned Courts below upon appreciation of the evidences on record. The copy of the Ext.-1, which is annexed to the memorandum of appeal rev eals that though the defendant claimed that he was made to sign the said documen t written on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.10/- in the year 2001 showing t he date of execution as 05.08.1998, the same was in fact executed on a paper bea ring revenue stamp of Rs.3/-. The said itself belies the stand taken by the defe ndant in the written statement. The learned Courts below, therefore, have rightl y disbelieved the story put forward by the defendant and decreed the suit. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not find any substantial questio n of law involved in the appeal so as to admit the appeal. Hence the appeal is accordingly dismissed.