JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. S.I. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Money Appeal No.1/2007 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge Barpeta in Money Suit No.17/2005 was affirmed. 3. This Court vide an order dated 04.08.2010 admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial questions of law which are reproduced herein under: “(1) Whether the findings of the learned court below that the defendant was not able to show any receipt acknowledged by the plaintiff and failed to discharge his burden by way of adducing documentary evidence is contrary to the provisions of Section 59 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act is perverse? (2) Whether the learned lower appellate court committed jurisdictional error by not remanding the case to the trial court under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure to afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in respect of additional issue No.5 as to maintainability of the suit because of bar under Section 7D of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934 after the said issue was framed by the learned lower appellate court at the time of hearing of the appeal?” 4. The question which arises before this Court is as to whether the substantial questions of law which were framed are at all involved in the instant appeal. To ascertain the same, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal. 5. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree for realization of an amount of Rs.32,000/- from the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.32,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a hand note on 01.11.2003 and agreed to pay back the said amount on demand. The defendant did not pay the said amount which led the plaintiff to issue a notice of demand on 14.07.2005. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.32,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a hand note on 01.11.2003 and agreed to pay back the said amount on demand. The defendant did not pay the said amount which led the plaintiff to issue a notice of demand on 14.07.2005. It was further mentioned that the defendant received the notice but did not reply to the plaintiff and it is under such circumstances the suit was filed. It was specifically mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff do not claim any interest. 6. Upon summons being issued, the defendant filed a written statement admitting inter alia that he had taken a loan of Rs.32,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.11.2003 by executing a hand note and agreed to pay back on demand the principal amount. It is the further case of the defendant that on 03.04.2004, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- and subsequently on 15.08.2005, the defendant paid the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/-. It was also mentioned that after payment of the said amount of Rs.32,000/- the defendant sought for the return of the hand note which the plaintiff informed the defendant that the same would be returned from 20.08.2005 however, the plaintiff did not return. It was under such circumstances, it was stated that the instant suit should be dismissed. 7. It is relevant to take note of that at paragraph No.5 of the written statement, the defendant duly admitted the notice but denied that the defendant did not meet the demand of the plaintiff. On the basis of the averment made in the plaint as well as in the written statement, four issues were framed which are reproduced herein under: “1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the defendant repaid Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff on 3.4.2004 and Rs.12,000/- on 15.08.2005? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for? 4. To what relief or relieves the parties are entitled?” 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were adduced and on behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were adduced. 2. Whether the defendant repaid Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff on 3.4.2004 and Rs.12,000/- on 15.08.2005? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for? 4. To what relief or relieves the parties are entitled?” 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were adduced and on behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were adduced. The learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.2, came to a categorical finding on the basis of the evidence that the defendant failed to prove that he had returned back the amount of Rs.32,000/- On the basis thereof, the learned Trial Court decided the Issue No.3 holding inter alia that the defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.32,000/- to the plaintiff. The said judgment was passed on 28.11.2006. 9. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the defendant which was registered and numbered as Money Appeal No.1/2007 before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Barpeta. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties and taking into account the evidence on record, categorically came to an opinion that the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that the defendant repaid the amount of Rs.32,000/- to the plaintiff and as such, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. It is under such circumstances, the present appeal was filed. 10. It is relevant to mention that during the pendency of the said appeal, the learned First Appellate Court framed an additional issue as to whether the suit was barred in view of Section 7D of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934. The learned First Appellate Court decided the said issue on the basis of the materials on record and came to a finding that the suit in question was not barred under Section 7D of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934. 11. In the backdrop of the above, this Court duly heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the Appellant as well as the Respondent and also perused the materials on record including the certified copies of the evidence which were placed by Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant at the time of hearing. 12. The question therefore arises as to whether the substantial questions of law which were formulated vide the order dated 04.08.2010 are involved in the present appeal. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant at the time of hearing. 12. The question therefore arises as to whether the substantial questions of law which were formulated vide the order dated 04.08.2010 are involved in the present appeal. The first substantial question of law is as to whether the findings of the learned Courts below that the defendant was not able to show any receipt acknowledged by the plaintiff and failed to discharge his burden by way of adducing documentary evidence is contrary to the provisions of Section 59 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act and hence perverse. This Court has duly taken note of that both the Courts below have concurrently came to an opinion that the defendant had failed to adduce evidence to the effect that the defendant paid the amount of Rs.32,000/- to the plaintiff on 03.04.2004 and 15.08.2005. It is further seen that the learned First Appellate Court had also observed that the defendant has not produced any receipt of payment of any of the amounts alleged to have been repaid to the plaintiff. The question, however, arises as to whether there is a perversity in the finding by overlooking the provisions of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that there is perversity taking into account that the defendant through DW-2, who was a witness to the repayment of the amount, established that the defendant had repaid the amount on 03.04.2004 and 15.08.2005 and as such there is perversity in that aspect. 13. This Court has duly taken note of the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below and both the Courts have concurrently arrived at the finding of fact to the effect that the defendant failed to prove the repayment of the amount of Rs.32,000/-. Such concurrent findings of fact cannot normally be interfered with sans any perversity is shown in an appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellant had urged that the oral evidence of the repayment of the amount taken on loan was not properly appreciated in terms with Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 14. It is well settled that a suit can be filed on the basis of a hand note if the debtor fails to repay the amount promised in writing. 14. It is well settled that a suit can be filed on the basis of a hand note if the debtor fails to repay the amount promised in writing. The evidence on record as well as the clear admission on the part of the Defendant shows that the Defendant duly executed the hand note to pay the amount of Rs.32,000/- on demand made by the plaintiff. The Defendant has claimed that he repaid the amount in two installments and stated that the plaintiff did not return the hand note. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that the materials on record show that the Defendant did not produce any documentary evidence as regards acknowledgement of the amount alleged to have been repaid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Additionally, the defendant neither filed any suit for declaration that he had repaid the amount mentioned in hand note and the plaintiff did not return nor the Defendant filed any counter claim in the suit. There is no explanation in the evidence of the Defendant as to why even after receipt of the legal notice dated 14.07.2005, he did not insist on any receipt when he paid the second installment as alleged on 15.08.2005. Both the Court below applied their mind to the evidence on record and arrived at the finding of fact. Under such circumstances, the findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below do not call for interference. The first substantial question of law so formulated is therefore not involved in the present appeal. 15. The second substantial question of law is as to whether the learned Trial Court ought to have remanded the suit in terms with Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code to afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in respect to the additional Issue No.5 as to the maintainability of the suit because of the bar contained under Section 7D of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934 after the said issue was framed by the learned Lower Appellate Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. 16. This Court had duly perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court in respect to the additional Issue No.5. 16. This Court had duly perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court in respect to the additional Issue No.5. It is further seen that the learned First Appellate Court having taken into account the evidence on record and further the provision of Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code was of the opinion that no further evidence was required and as such decided the issue. This Court has duly perused the Paragraph No.17 of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court and do not find any infirmity. Under such circumstances, the second substantial question of law so formulated is not involved in the present appeal. 17. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any substantial question of law in the instant appeal for which the instant appeal stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-.