JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Accordingly, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2007 whereby and where under, the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat allowed the appeal and dismissed the Money Suit No. 01 of 2005 which was decreed on contest by the trial court and the trial court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1,05,000/- to the plaintiff. 4. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that the plaintiff provided Rs. 1,05,000/- to the defendant as friendly loan. The defendant on 23.02.2002 executed the money receipt in presence of witnesses in favour of the plaintiff. After lapse of some period, the plaintiff demanded the money and ultimately on 08.09.2004, the defendant handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,05,000/- payable to the plaintiff with the assurance that the cheque should be encashed after three months. The defendant thereafter, reported the matter to police on 09.09.2004. The plaintiff was called by the Officer-in-Charge of Bermo Police Station and on enquiry, the plaintiff agreed that a day before 09.09.2004, a cheque in discharge of friendly loan was provided to the plaintiff with assurance to encash the money from the bank account after three months. Hence, the plaintiff executed a note regarding clearance of his dues with the defendant which has later been marked as Ext.A from the side of the defendant, in this suit. On confrontation to the plaintiff, the plaintiff thereafter presented the cheque dated 08.09.2004 on 23.12.2004 to encash the cheque but the same was returned unpaid by the bank because of insufficiency of funds in the account of the defendant. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant and even after that the defendant did not return the money. The plaintiff filed this money suit with a prayer for decree of amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and also prayed for cost of the suit and other reliefs. 5. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant and even after that the defendant did not return the money. The plaintiff filed this money suit with a prayer for decree of amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and also prayed for cost of the suit and other reliefs. 5. The defendant-deceased sole respondent in his written statement though denied the factum of taking Rs. 1,05,000/- from the plaintiff and also went to the extent of pleading that the money receipt claimed to have been executed by the defendant to the plaintiff is a forged one and further pleaded that there was some criminal litigation between the parties which was settled on 09.09.2004 but in sub-para of paragraph no. 9 of the written statement, the defendant though in the first paragraph has denied the allegations made in the paragraph no. 4 of the plaint being not correct but went on to plead that the said cheque was provided to the plaintiff by the defendant in leave of friendly loan taken by the defendant as per money receipt dated 23.02.2002 and accordingly the plaintiff kept the cheque as the security of the friendly loan advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant further pleaded that on 09.09.2004, the plaintiff admitted his no dues and beside it, the defendant also pleaded that the suit be dismissed on technical grounds also. 6. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed altogether 7 issues: (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has any valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the defendant has executed money receipts in favour of the plaintiff on 23.02.2002 against friendly loan? (iv) Whether the defendant issued and handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,05,000/- on 08.09.2004 against the friendly loan? (v) Whether the money receipt dated 23.02.2002 granted by the defendant is forged and fabricated? (vi) Whether the cheque for Rs. 1,05,000/- dated 08.09.2004 forged and fabricated? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity? 7. 1,05,000/- on 08.09.2004 against the friendly loan? (v) Whether the money receipt dated 23.02.2002 granted by the defendant is forged and fabricated? (vi) Whether the cheque for Rs. 1,05,000/- dated 08.09.2004 forged and fabricated? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff-appellant examined altogether five witnesses and also proved the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 6 and from the side of the defendant-deceased sole respondent, three witnesses were examined and he also proved the documents which have been marked as Ext.A to C. 8. The learned trial court took up issue nos. (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) together and found that though Ext.1 which is the purported money receipt executed by the defendant in taking the said loan of Rs. 1,05,000/- was marked with objection but the plaintiff examined PW-2 and PW-3 who are the eyewitnesses to the agreement and the plaintiff has also proved Ext.3 which is the cheque executed by the defendant which was taken as security against the said loan and went on to arrive at the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff for demand of Rs. 1,05,000/- from the defendant is legal, genuine and valid one and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant and answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (i) and (ii) together and disposed of the same as not pressed and on the basis of finding upon issue nos. (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) arrived at the conclusion that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is having valid cause of action. In respect of issue no. (vii), the learned trial court found that the plaintiff should be compensated with the cost also and decreed the suit as already indicated above. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No. 01 of 2005 dated 24.01.2007, the appellant preferred Money Appeal No. 01 of 2007 in the court of District Judge, Bokaro which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. 10. The learned first appellate court did not specifically formulated any point for determination as mandated under Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure but made a general discussion of the evidence in the record and finding of the learned trial court and observed that the observation made by the learned trial court that though in the written statement, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff managed a leaf of cheque of the defendant but the evidence in the record is that the cheque leaf was snatched by the plaintiff from the defendant hence, there is this inconsistency in the pleading and evidence of the defendant is in fact not an inconsistency because true legal effect of harmonious and comprehensive reading of the pleading showed that cheque was managed by illegal means and snatching of the cheque also amounts to managing the cheque by illegal means. The learned first appellate court laid much emphasis on the Ext.A as therein the plaintiff has categorically admitted that he will not institute any suit. Hence, even though the defendant has not filed the copy of the complaint consequent upon which the plaintiff was called to the police station and therein he wrote that the Ext.1 is of no consequence. The learned first appellate court also found fault with the plaintiff by observing that there is inconsistency in the pleading and evidence of the plaintiffs regarding the purpose for which the money was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as in the plaint, it has been pleaded that the money was advanced to the defendant for medical treatment of the wife of the defendant and for construction of the house but in the notice given to the defendant, the office copy of which has been marked as Ext.4, there is no reference of advancing the loan for construction of the house and it has been mentioned in Ext.4 that money was advanced for medical treatment of the defendant and for treatment of the wife of the defendant. The learned first appellate court found fault with the trial court for not properly interpreting the effect of Ext.A as therein, it has been categorically mentioned that no debt of any of them remained due upon the other. The learned first appellate court found fault with the trial court for not properly interpreting the effect of Ext.A as therein, it has been categorically mentioned that no debt of any of them remained due upon the other. The learned first appellate court treated the Ext.A to be a no due certificate of the plaintiff and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit as already indicated above. 11. At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated vide order no. 3 dated 17.12.2009: (i) Whether the Court of Appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court? (ii) Whether the document (Ext.A) has been considered in its right perspective by the appellate Court in recording its finding? 12. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has in no uncertain manner has pleaded in the plaint itself that the note which has subsequently been marked Ext.A only was written by him; as the cheque in discharge of the debt of Rs. 1,05,000/- was given to him a day before prior to 08.09.2004 with a rider that the said cheque be presented three months from the date of issue. Hence, the same is an admission of the defendant that there was a money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant which is contrary to the pleadings of the defendant as the defendant has pleaded that there was no money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and the learned first appellate court erred by treating the same as a no due certificate by the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court stand vitiated by improper interpretation of Ext.A as a no due certificate, which debars the plaintiff from claiming his money; even for the subsequent cause of action on 23.12.2004 when the said cheque on being presented for payment, was dishonoured by the bank because of insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the defendant. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the learned trial court committed an error by making an interpretation of the pleadings of the defendant though a pleading is to be read as has been made and not by making any interpretation of the same. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the learned trial court committed an error by making an interpretation of the pleadings of the defendant though a pleading is to be read as has been made and not by making any interpretation of the same. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the learned first appellate court has committed an error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the learned trial court on irrelevant considerations. It is lastly submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in Money Suit No. 01 of 2005 be restored. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has specifically mentioned about the note executed by him in the police station which has been marked Ext.A; from the side of the defendant obviously, the same was not in the possession of the plaintiff but in the possession of the defendant. If at all while saying something from the memory about a document some extra word which was not in Ext.A has been uttered by the plaintiff in his evidence that will not be a major factor for construing a different meaning to the Ext.A as has been done by the learned first appellate court in this case. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that since the defendant gave a cheque on 08.09.2004 hence on 09.09.2004 when summoned to the police station, he agreed that he has no dues. It is the case of the defendant that since the plaintiff snatched away the cheque leaf from him hence, he reported the matter to police. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that since the defendant gave a cheque on 08.09.2004 hence on 09.09.2004 when summoned to the police station, he agreed that he has no dues. It is the case of the defendant that since the plaintiff snatched away the cheque leaf from him hence, he reported the matter to police. The learned trial court of course has find fault with the defendant for not producing the complaint submitted by the defendant to the police but the question remains unanswered, that if in fact, the plaintiff snatched away the cheque leaf which has been marked Ext.3 from the defendant over which the signature of the defendant which has been marked as Ext.2 and the signature is admitted by the defendant and the defendant approached the police on the next day and as settlement was arrived at between the parties and if the cheque leaf which has been marked Ext.3 was not the consideration for the said settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant vide Ext.A, as to why the cheque leaf marked Ext.3 continued to be in possession of the plaintiff facilitating him to present the same in the bank for payment of the amount mentioned therein; which ultimately was dishonoured because of insufficiency in the bank account of the plaintiff. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the cheque leaf which has been marked as Ext.3 was the consideration, for which, as pleaded by the plaintiff, he gave in writing in the Police Station, that he has no dues on 09.09.2004 vide Ext.A. Hence, the learned first appellate court has committed a grave error in considering the Ext.A to be a no due certificate given by the plaintiff to the defendant. The second substantial question of law as to whether the document (Ext.A) has been considered in its right perspective by the appellate Court in recording its finding is answered in the negative because of the discussions made above. 14. Now coming to the first substantial question of law as to whether the court of appeal has committed an error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court, it is a settled principle of law that the learned appellate court should not interfere with the finding of fact given by the trial court unless some reason based on some facts is traceable in the record. 15. 15. As the learned first appellate court has basically reversed the finding of the learned trial court on consideration of Ext.A to be a certificate of no dues and as therein the plaintiff has mentioned that he will not file any suit but in view of the discussion made above and the conclusion arrived at by this Court in respect of second substantial question of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the court of appeal below has committed an error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the learned trial court. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2007 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Suit No. 01 of 2005 dated 24.01.2007 is restored. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed ex-parte but in the circumstances without any costs. 18. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to learned court concerned forthwith.