JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 171 03/1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir, in Civil Suit No. 14-B/91 whereby the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.42,000/¬(Rupees forty-two thousand only) has been dismissed. 2. Facts material for disposal of this appeal in brief compass are that on 13/08/1988, both the respondents jointly took a loan of Rs.40, 150/- (Rupees forty thousand one hundred and fifty only) from the appellant. The amount was paid to them by cheque. Both the respondents encashed the same. The amount was refundable within two years and interest @ 18% per annum was agreed to be paid on the loan amount. Respondents did not repay the principal amount and interest despite service of written registered notice, therefore, the appellant relinquishing some part of his claim filed the suit for recovery of Rs.42,000/-. 3. Respondents admitted that they had received Rs.40,150/- from appellant by cheque but denied the claim of the appellant and pleaded that appellant was PWD Contractor who obtained a contract of some construction work in Jail Building and assigned the work on sub-contract to them on the term that on payment received from the department, after keeping 5% of the amount, remaining will be paid to the respondents. The amount was due towards this sub-contract, therefore, appellant paid the said amount. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Learned Court below appreciating the evidence, was of the opinion that the loan was not disbursed in round figure. Neither query regarding partnership firm by the appellant has been made nor regular account has been produced by him. By holding his witness Deepak Das as a charce witness, disbelieved the story of loan transaction and on the probability that some agreement on 1/8/1988 took place in between both the parties and cheque issued in favour of the appellant by PWD was acknowledged by respondent No. 1, and relying on the oral evidence adduced by respondents, dismissed the suit 5. Ram Avatar (PW/ 1) in his oral evidence deposed that on 13/081 1988 respondents came to his shop and took loan of Rs.40,150/- on interest @ 18% per annum for their business and agreed to repay the same within two years. The amount was paid to them by cheque. Deepak Das (PW/2) corroborated the oral evidence of Ram Avatar (PW/l). Ram Avatar (PW/ 1) in his oral evidence deposed that on 13/081 1988 respondents came to his shop and took loan of Rs.40,150/- on interest @ 18% per annum for their business and agreed to repay the same within two years. The amount was paid to them by cheque. Deepak Das (PW/2) corroborated the oral evidence of Ram Avatar (PW/l). Admittedly, respondents had received Rs.40,150/- from the appellant by cheque. Merely on the ground that Deepak Das (PW 12) is a chance witness, his whole testimony cannot be discarded. On meticulous scrutiny of his statement I did not find any substantial material to disbelieve his testimony. 6. Learned trial Court did not consider the fact that a written notice, demanding the amount has been served on respondents and respondents did not reply to that notice. Respondents, on the other hand, took a defence that the notice was fake, therefore, they did not reply to it. If the demand by appellant was false in that case, it was obligatory on the part of respondents to reply the same by unveiling the truth. Non reply of notice compels to draw an adverse inference against the respondents. When it was admitted by the respondents that they received Rs.40,150/- from appellant and from the evidence adduced by the appellant, it was acceptable that the amount, has been paid to them towards the loan transaction, the burden shifts on respondents to prove contrary to it and also to prove that the amount received by them is towards work done by them against sub-contract obtained by them from the appellant. It is alleged by respondents that appellant obtained a contract to construct internal wall in Jail building from PWD and the work was assigned to the respondents by the appellant on condition that on payment 5% of the amount will be retained by the appellant and remaining shall be paid to the respondents. It is also alleged that an agreement on 01/08/1988 was also executed in between the parties. Rajkumar Rathore (PW/4), Public Notary only proves that on 01/08/l988, some agreement in between the parties took place and as a notary he verified the same but failed to narrate the details of the agreement. Respondent Ganesh Prasad (DW/l) in his cross examination deposed that after payment of bill, the agreement took place. Rajkumar Rathore (PW/4), Public Notary only proves that on 01/08/l988, some agreement in between the parties took place and as a notary he verified the same but failed to narrate the details of the agreement. Respondent Ganesh Prasad (DW/l) in his cross examination deposed that after payment of bill, the agreement took place. From the witness of Sonadas Manikpuri (DW/2) it is evident that first bill towards contract was paid by the department on 10108/1988. Therefore, from the evidence of respondents itself, it was apparent that no agreement regarding sub-contract took place on o 1/08/l 988. 7. As per agreement, respondents were entitled to receive Rs.46,692.50 (Rupees forty-six thousand six hundred ninety two and fifty paise) from the appellant but appellant only paid Rs.40,150/-. Therefore, a quarrel took place and was resolved by Krishna Kumar Pandey and Santosh Tiwari. Both these witnesses have not been adduced by the respondents. The contract was assigned to appellant by PWD. Whether such a contract could be re-assigned to respondents by the appellant, under the terms of contract between the PWD and appellant, was material but neither it was pleaded by any party nor any evidence towards it has been adduced. Work was done by respondents towards PWD contract, it must have been measured and supervised by PWD authorities, but material witness from PWD to support it, have not been adduced. If in terms of sub-contract, appellant did not pay the amount to the respondents a question arises as to why the' respondents did not take the legal steps to recover the same. No explanation to this question has been brought on record by the respondents. Only on the contention that cheque issued in favour of the appellant was acknowledged by one of the respondent that too not proved by substantial evidence, cannot establish the theory of sub-contract. 8. Learned lower Court failed to appreciate evidence in right direction and as a result of that issues in favour of respondents and against the appellant, have been decided by him. 9. From the evidence on record and aforesaid discussions, it was established that respondents received loan of Rs. 40,150/- on 13/08/l988 on interest and failed to repay the amount Appellant although calculated the interest which comes to Rs. 21,681/- but had relinquished a major part of it. Therefore, it is held that appellants are entitled for recovery of Rs. 42,000/-from the respondents along with interest. 40,150/- on 13/08/l988 on interest and failed to repay the amount Appellant although calculated the interest which comes to Rs. 21,681/- but had relinquished a major part of it. Therefore, it is held that appellants are entitled for recovery of Rs. 42,000/-from the respondents along with interest. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the lower Court is set aside and instead, it is decreed that respondents jointly and severally shall pay Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty-two thousand) along with interest @ 6% from 12/08/1991 till its satisfaction to appellant. Respondents to pay to appellant cost of the suit and appeal. Appeal Allowed.