JUDGMENT : Shekhar B. Saraf, J. This suit has been filed by one Mr. Manish Poddar son of Shri Ashok Kumar Poddar, working for gain at 16A, Brabourne Road, 9th Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff'] for recovery of loan lent and advanced to one Mr. S. Perumal Raj residing at 1/48, Medapally, Krishnagari, Tamil Nadu - 635001 [hereinafter referred to as 'defendant']. 2. The Chronological facts leading to the instant suit is delineated below: (a). On October, 2014 the defendant approached the plaintiff at 16A, Brabourne Road, 9th Floor, Kolkata - 700001 and requested the plaintiff to provide a loan. Thereafter plaintiff and the defendant agreed orally that the plaintiff would provide a loan by way of onetime temporary accommodation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores only) to the defendant. (b). The terms of the oral agreement inter alia, was that if the defendant fails to repay the loan within a period of one year from availing the same, the defendant would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire loan amount, then due, from the date of disbursement till repayment. According to the agreement it was also, inter alia, agreed that the plaintiff would be at liberty to call off the loan at any time if the defendant fails to repay the loan within a period of one year from the date of availing the same and the defendant would have to pay the entire amount with accrued interest upon the loan being called off. (c). On 29th October, 2014 the plaintiff transferred the loan amount through Real Time Gross Transfer (RTGS) from an account maintained at IDBI Bank Limited to the defendant's bank account maintained with ICICI bank at Tamil Nadu. Two transfers were made by the plaintiff. The first transfer was of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty lakhs only) for which the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing number 327092 dated 29th October, 2014 to its banker and the second transfer made was of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty lakhs only) for which the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing number 327093 dated 29th October, 2014 to its banker. (d). 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty lakhs only) for which the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing number 327092 dated 29th October, 2014 to its banker and the second transfer made was of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty lakhs only) for which the plaintiff issued a cheque bearing number 327093 dated 29th October, 2014 to its banker. (d). After 29th October, 2015 the plaintiff was entitled to call off the loan and the defendant became liable to repay the entire loan amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till repayment. The defendant on diverse pretexts sought time from the plaintiff to repay the temporary accommodation loan amount with the accrued interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (e). Finally, the plaintiff called off the temporary accommodation loan by a notice dated 19th July, 2017 and, inter alia, demanded repayment of the said loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- along with accrued interest at the rate of 18% per annum within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Till date no payment whatsoever has been made to the plaintiff by the defendant. (f). The defendant by a letter dated 2nd August, 2017, addressed the claims made by the plaintiff in the notice dated 19th July, 2017. The defendant admitted to have received the temporary accommodation loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Further the defendant referred to an alleged letter of undertaking dated 10th August, 2016 and also stated that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as principal is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff along with the interest towards the loan account from 16th August, 2016 but the defendants did not disclose any particulars with regard to the contentions made in the letter. (g). The plaintiff through a letter dated 19th August, 2017 replied to the defendant's letter dated 2nd August, 2017. Thereafter, the defendant via letter dated 28th August, 2017 replied to the plaintiff's letter dated 19th August, 2017. And finally by the letter dated 11th September, 2017 the plaintiff replied to the defendant's letter dated 28th August, 2017. 3. The Deputy Registrar on the request of the plaintiff certified that the defendant has not entered appearance either in person or through its advocate as on 15th January, 2019. Thus, by the order of the court the matter was fixed for hearing as 'Undefended Suit'. 4. 3. The Deputy Registrar on the request of the plaintiff certified that the defendant has not entered appearance either in person or through its advocate as on 15th January, 2019. Thus, by the order of the court the matter was fixed for hearing as 'Undefended Suit'. 4. The sole point of consideration before this court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree prayed for. 5. Mr. Manish Poddar being the plaintiff was examined before this court on 10th April, 2019. The plaintiff deposed that the defendant and plaintiff knew each other for the past 10 years and they entered into an oral agreement in the month of October, 2014 wherein the plaintiff agreed to give on loan to the defendant a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as an one time loan and the amount would be refunded to the plaintiff by the defendant within one year. 6. The witness deposed that he had obtained a downloaded copy of the summary of accounts from his bank account held with IDBI Bank, Mukherjee House, 17, Brabourne Road, Kolkata for the period 1st October, 2014 to 31st December, 2014 and the same has been marked as Exhibit "A". There are two entries against the date 29th October, 2014 which shows that an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, has been transferred to the defendant by the plaintiff. The entries have been tallied with the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The witness has also disclosed payment vouchers which has been collectively marked as Exhibit "B" and the RTGS settlement reports obtained under the seal of the plaintiff's bank which has been marked as Exhibit "C". 7. The witness during his examination stated that by an advocate's notice dated 19th July, 2017 the plaintiff called off the loan given to the defendant. The notice directed the defendant to refund the entire amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- alongwith interest to the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of receipt of the instant notice. The said notice along with the postal tracking report has been tendered and marked as Exhibit "D". The defendant replied to the notice dated 19th July, 2017 by a letter dated 2nd August, 2017 issued through the defendant's advocate and a series of letters were exchanged between the parties which are dated 19th August 2017, 28th August 2017 and 11th September 2017. The defendant replied to the notice dated 19th July, 2017 by a letter dated 2nd August, 2017 issued through the defendant's advocate and a series of letters were exchanged between the parties which are dated 19th August 2017, 28th August 2017 and 11th September 2017. The said letters have been tendered and marked as Exhibit "E", Exhibit "F", Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "H". 8. The witness during his examination-in-chief has also disclosed his profit and loss statement for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2015 which has been marked as Exhibit "I". The encircled portion with the blue pencil on the said exhibited document shows the loan advanced to the defendant which has been marked as Exhibit "I-1". 9. In my opinion the defendant has never denied and in fact has admitted to have received the temporary accommodation loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff. In any case, the disbursement of the loan amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- has been adequately proved by the plaintiff. The defendant has not repaid the loan or any part thereof despite several reminders and the letter issued by the plaintiff's Advocate. At the same time the defendant has not enclosed any documentary evidence along with the letters issued to the plaintiff. The contentions made by the defendant have been categorically denied by the plaintiff. 10. Moreover, the fact that the defendant never came forward to even contest the instant suit shows that the defendant has no documents or materials to prove the contentions made by them in the said letters. The defendant never denied or said anything contrary to the terms of the oral agreement in any of the letters caused to be issued on 2nd August, 2017 or 28th August, 2017. 11. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 clearly stipulates that any allegation or fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleadings of the defendant shall be taken to be admitted against him. In the present case, the defendant has not even contested the suit by filing written statement or otherwise so any denial of any contention in the plaint cannot and does not arise and the same should be taken to be admitted by the defendant. 12. In the present case, the defendant has not even contested the suit by filing written statement or otherwise so any denial of any contention in the plaint cannot and does not arise and the same should be taken to be admitted by the defendant. 12. In my view the interest claimed by the plaintiff, that is, at the rate of 18% per annum, is not backed by any written documentary evidence, and accordingly, I am of the view that the interest claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit is neither justified nor proved. Hence, interest at the rate of 9% per annum would serve the ends of justice in the present case. 13. In the above circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- ( Rupees Four Crore only) alongwith interest to be calculated at the rate of 9% from 29th October, 2014 till the date of realisation of the principal amount. 14. There shall no orders as to costs. The department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.