H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka small cause courts act arises from the judgment and decree dated 25-3-1994 passed by the civil judge, haveri dismissing the plaintiffs suit with costs, taking a view that there is no evidence, oral or documentary to the effect that the defendant had taken any loan or sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and made a promise to pay back Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has paid Rs. 10,000/- as returnable by defendant to the plaintiff. It further held that a suit is based on no document, hence it is not tenable to resolve and the suit is dismissed. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest thereon i. e. , for a total sum of Rs. 11,3507- the plaintiffs case has been that the defendant has been very familiar and friendly with the plaintiff for a good long period. The defendant had one time being in financial difficulties approached the plaintiff and requested him to give hand loan. Plaintiff on account of friendly and familiar relations or it may be put on the account of friendlineas gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant and the defendant promised to repay the same whenever demanded in due course of time. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs case is that one month passed and the defendant had not repaid the amount. Plaintiff sent his man on January 31, 1990 to the defendant with a letter asking the defendant to repay the amount that was given to him. But the defendant sent back the person without money but with a letter putting some excuses for not making the payment. Thereafter the plaintiff from time to time sent his man with a letter to defendant, but the defendant sent reply expressing his disability on account of financial hardship and putting lame excuses and failed to pay that amount. Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 6-12-1990 by registered post acknowledgment due asking the defendant to pay back the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. That notice was served on 12-12-1990, but the defendant neither paid the amount nor did he care to reply. Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 6-12-1990 by registered post acknowledgment due asking the defendant to pay back the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. That notice was served on 12-12-1990, but the defendant neither paid the amount nor did he care to reply. Therefore, the plaintiff had to file a suit for hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at rate of 12% as damages of breach of contract on 19-1-1991 in munsiff courts. ( 4 ) THE cause of action arose in the month of December 1989 when according to plaint allegations paragraph 3, defendant obtained hand loan from the plaintiff in the month of December 1989. The cause of action has already been alleged to have taken place, further on 31-1- 1990 also at time when the plaintiff sent his man with a letter to repay the amount, the defendant did not care to repay and also on 6-12-1990 i. e. , on which legal notice was issued as well as on 12-12-1990 when the same i. e. , notice was served and defendant failed to repay the said sum. ( 5 ) IN spite of the summons being served on defendant did not file any written statement though counsel on his behalf did put in appearance. The plaintiff examined himself as a witness and produced the letters dated 31-1-1990, 1-6-1990, 18-9-1990 and two other letters all of which are marked as exs. P. 1 to p. 5. He has also produced the copy of the notice served on the defendant along with the copy of the acknowledgment receipt of notice, showing the notice having been served. ( 6 ) P. W. 1's statement clearly shows that the plaintiff has proved ex. P. 1 and ex. P. 5 which have been written and signed by the defendant. The defendant has neither challenged those documents nor has appeared in witness box. The trial court, as mentioned earlier dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved from that Order, the plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka small cause courts act. ( 7 ) I have heard Mrs. Vidya patil (kulkarni) and Sri Anand Navalgimath for Sri Mohan shanthanagoudar, counsel for the respondent. The trial court, as mentioned earlier dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved from that Order, the plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka small cause courts act. ( 7 ) I have heard Mrs. Vidya patil (kulkarni) and Sri Anand Navalgimath for Sri Mohan shanthanagoudar, counsel for the respondent. On behalf of the applicant Smt. Patil submitted that the judgment and decree of the court below dismissing the plaintiffs suit is not according to law as the learned court below misread the plaint, misread the exhibits and dismissed the suit taking a view that there is no document or receipt of loan transaction and the plaintiff has not given the date of the transaction of the loan in suit in the plaint. Smt. Patil invited my attention to the plaint specially to paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof. She contented that the plaint itself reveal that the transaction itself is of December 1989. She further submitted that a perusal of exs. P. 3, p. 4 and p. 5 clearly reveal that the defendant had taken loan and he has admitted indebtedness and liability for the sums towards the plaintiff and agreed to pay off that amount, but the court below has ignored exs. P. 3 and p. 4 and the material part relating thereto in the plaint. The learned counsel contended that exs. P. 1 to p. 5 and in particular p. 3, p. 4 and p. 5 read along with statement of p. w. 1 clearly establish the transaction of loan of the sum advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff namely Rs. 10,000/ -. She further submitted that the defendant has not filed any written statement denying plaintiffs claim and further he has not come in witness box to depose against what has been stated by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the evidence and from this failure of the defendant to file written statement as well as to appear in witness box, the court should have drawn adverse inference against the defendant's case and ought to have held that the plaintiffs case stands established by oral document and circumstantial evidence and the adverse presumption arising from defendant-respondent's failure to appear in witness box. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further urged the failure of court below to raise adverse presumption also amounts to acting illegally and not in accordance with law, by the court below while dismissing the suit and recording the finding against the plaintiff. The learned counsel contended that this is a fit case in which the interest of Justice requires that the revision may be allowed and the decision of the court below be interfered with and the suit may be decreed. ( 8 ) THESE contentions of the plaintiffs-revision petitioner's counsel have hotly been contested by the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Anand Navalgimath. He submitted that as regards transaction of loan the plaintiff has not specifically stated on what date the defendant had taken loan. These documents exs. P. 4 and p. 5 have not been proved and that no receipt has been taken by the plaintiffs or pronote has been got executed. The court below as such rightly disbelieved the plaintiffs evidence and the case is concluded by pure finding of fact so revision is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties. ( 10 ) AFTER having ignored the material evidence on record as well as circumstantial evidence appearing on record and the presumption of law that arise under Evidence Act against the defendant's case, the court below had acted illegally as well as not in accordance with law in dismissing the plaintiff-petitioner's suit. The court below in its judgment j observes that "according to the plaintiff, he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant. The day on which this amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, is not mentioned in the plaint". Anyway, I have perused the plaint, and I find that plaint clearly gives the month and year in which loan was given. It also gives an idea of the date when it can be said to have been given. Plaint paragraph 1 reveals and indicates that loan must have been given sometimes in latter part of December 1989, as per paragraph 3 it has been stated that the cause of action arose when the defendant obtained Rs. 10,000/- as hand loan from the plaintiff in the month of December 1989. Plaint paragraph 1 reveals and indicates that loan must have been given sometimes in latter part of December 1989, as per paragraph 3 it has been stated that the cause of action arose when the defendant obtained Rs. 10,000/- as hand loan from the plaintiff in the month of December 1989. It means according to plaintiff, the loan was given in December at the most it can be taken before 31 december, 1989. Allegations of paragraph 1 are that about a month earlier to the date of plaintiffs messenger going to the defendant that brings out that the loan was given in December month, so, it is clearly stated as to when the loan was given might be that particular date might not have been mentioned, but the suit could not be said to be barred by time and the period is clear as to when the loan was given. The court below in its judgment observes that the plaintiff has not obtained receipt from defendant for having received the money from the plaintiff. Under law, receipt of the amount advanced in excess of Rs. 20/- has to be compulsorily evidenced by stamped receipt. Loan of any amount in excess of Rs. 207- if given, it has ordinarily to be evidenced by stamped receipt but if the loan is given under oral transaction on faith and the person demands back the amount, such a person who has taken loan under oral contract is bound to repay. No doubt, the contract may have to be established by oral or documentary evidence or circumstancial evidence. In this case, there is one more circumstance to be taken into consideration and it is that the defendant had not denied taking of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff with promise to repay the same and when the defendant has not denied that, the said fact stands admitted. ( 11 ) THE learned court below has mis-read ex. P. 3 dated 18-9-1990 that has been proved by the plaintiff as P. W. 1 which reads as follows:"dear sir, I am sorry for your difficulty, because I am in difficult position. Now the crops is started. I will pay your helping amount within 15 days. Please excuse me". this letter indicates that when he says that the loan obtained which is described as helping amount, the defendant could have come to the witness box and explained. Now the crops is started. I will pay your helping amount within 15 days. Please excuse me". this letter indicates that when he says that the loan obtained which is described as helping amount, the defendant could have come to the witness box and explained. The amount refers to the sum of money that the plaintiff has given to the defendant-respondent during the period defendant-respondent was pressed and in difficult situation. This really indicates that the defendant has received some money from the plaintiff, when he the defendant was in difficult situations and that it had to be returned because the letter shows that the could not return by that date so he expressed sorry for that. ( 12 ) IN ex. p. 4 again the defendant-respondent writes to plaintiff, addressing the plaintiff as pandit sahib as plaintiff name is narayana venkatesh pandit. In this letter it is written as "sir, I am not feeling well since one month. Now, I sent the chillies to Bombay. When I feel well go to Bombay and come to you with money. Do not misunderstand mo". Again he says that he has to pay money. The letter indicates that the defendant had sent some of his chillies to Bombay for being sold there and defendant says that when he goes to Bombay and then he will come with money to pay the plaintiff and the defendant should not be misunderstood. Please excuse. "ex. P. 5 has to be read in that context, in which it is clearly written that "i will pay you Rs. 10,000/- which is received from you". The date in this letter some portion is torn, but no doubt it indicates to be of the year 1990. Ex. P. 5 was shown to the learned counsel for the respondent. He also admits that it indicates that it appears to be dated 7-2-1990. These letters taken together clearly reveal that defendant really had taken the loan amount and he acknowledges liability to pay the same vide letter dated 7-2-1990. He had accepted the liability to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which he had received from the plaintiff. This letter read along with exs. P, 3 and p. 4 as well as read along with statement of P. W. 1 clearly prove the transaction that is the plaintiff's case of the defendant having taken and received Rs. He had accepted the liability to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which he had received from the plaintiff. This letter read along with exs. P, 3 and p. 4 as well as read along with statement of P. W. 1 clearly prove the transaction that is the plaintiff's case of the defendant having taken and received Rs. 10,000/- as hand loan from the plaintiff. The court below in my opinion has acted illegally in misreading exs. P. 3 and p. 4 and in ignoring ex. P. 5 as well. The finding of the courts below as such has to be held to have been arrived not in accordance with law. Further the failure of defendant to file written statement as well as his failure to come to witness box further required the raising of adverse presumption raised against the defendant-respondents which would have supported plaintiff-applicant case and the evidence but the court below acted illegally by its not raising the same. The defendant should have filed written statement denying the plaintiffs case if plaintiffs petitioner claim for false as well as should have appeared in witness box to make statement as well as put himself to cross-examination. When a party does not appear in the witness box, it is one of the well-settled principles of law that adverse presumption should be raised against such party unless there is specific reason for that party not having appeared in witness box, as in the present case. The evidence of P. W. 1, read with documentary evidence in particular exs. P. 3, p, 4 and p. 5 coupled with the adverse presumption arising against the defendant, lends support to the plaintiffs case. In my opinion, the plaintiff had really proved and made out the case that defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff which was given in his difficult circumstances, which had to be returned and therefore the defendant was liable to return the same. ( 13 ) HE failed to return that amount to the plaintiff. The present suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation on the date of its institution i. e. , 19-1-1991 in munsiffs court, as three years period for filing the suit would have expired on 6-12-1993. ( 13 ) HE failed to return that amount to the plaintiff. The present suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation on the date of its institution i. e. , 19-1-1991 in munsiffs court, as three years period for filing the suit would have expired on 6-12-1993. Thus in my considered view, the decision and judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff-revision petitioner's suit has not been in accordance with law. The said decree has to be set aside, the revision has to be allowed and suit has to be decreed in view of the findings arrived at by this court. ( 14 ) IF the plaintiffs money would not have been taken by the defendant, the plaintiff would have earned some interest thereon by depositing or by investing the same in the bank. But because the defendant had taken the money and thereafter he did not repay, really he has caused damage to the plaintiff. ( 15 ) IN view of the provision of Section 70 of the Contract Act read with Section 74 of the Contract Act, in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to get the interest on the said amount. In every case, at the rate on which interest is chargeable, if not on fixed deposit but at least on the s. b. deposits. The plaintiff is therefore held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p. A. From the date of transaction of the loan till this day i. e. , the date of decree passed by this court and further interest from 1st August onwards till the payment of the decretal all amount at the rate of 6% p. a. suit is decreed with costs of both the parties. --- *** --- .