Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010037612026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/27/2026 SYED AMANUL ISLAM S/O SYED ROFIQUL ISLAM, R/O VILL- REWATI GAON, P.O- NAZIRA, P.S- NAZIRA, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, 785685 VERSUS PANKAJ BORUAH S/O LATE TIRTHESWAR BORUAH, R/O NAZIRA TOWN, WARD NO. 7, P.O AND P.S- NAZIRA, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, AMAN ALI,MR G BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1597/2026 SYED ANAMUL ISLAM S/O SYED ROFIQUL ISLAM R/O VILLAGE REWATI GAON PO NAZIRA PS NAZIRA DIST SIVASAGAR ASASM Page No.# 2/5 VERSUS SRI PANKAJ BORUAH S/O LATE TIRTHESWAR BORUAH R/O NAZIRA TOWN WARD NO 7 PO NAZIRA PS NAZIRA DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR J KALITA Advocate for : MR P KATAKI SR. ADV. appearing for SRI PANKAJ BORUAH Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/843/2026 SYED ANAMUL ISLAM S/O SYED ROFIQUL ISLAM R/O VILL- REWATI GAON P.O- NAZIRA P.S- NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 785685 VERSUS PANKAJ BORUAH S/O LATE TIRTHESWAR BORUAH R/O NAZIRA TOWN WARD NO. 7 P.O AND P.S- NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- ------------ Advocate for : MR. J KALITA Advocate for : appearing for PANKAJ BORUAH Page No.# 3/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R. Begum, learned counsel representing the sole respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sivasagar in Money Appeal No.01/2023. 3. The respondent Pankaj Boruah filed the Money Suit being M.S. 32/2021 against the present appellant Sayed Amanul Islam prayed for recovery of ₹1700,000/-. 4. The present appellant being the defendant, did not contest the suit and as such, the trial court of the Civil Judge, Sivasagar proceeded ex parte against the present appellant and ultimately, dismissed the suit. 5. The respondent preferred an appeal being Money Appeal No.01/2023 in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Sivasagar. This time, the present appellant Sayed Amanul Islam contested the appeal. After hearing both sides, the learned appellate court disagreed with the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit of the present respondent. 6. The suit of the present respondent revolved around three cheques, which were given to him by the appellant for repayment of a loan amount. The cheques were not presented in the Bank. Instead, the respondent filed the money suit for recovery of the loan amount. The learned trial court held that the present respondent failed to prove that he had ever gave a loan of ₹1700,000/- to the present appellant. Page No.# 4/5 Accordingly, the suit of the present respondent was dismissed. 7. The learned appellate court relied upon an agreement dated 27th April, 2018 which was entered into by both sides of this case and in this agreement, the present appellant acknowledged that he had received a sum of ₹1700,000/- from the respondent on various dates commencing from March, 2017 to June, 2017. It may be mentioned that this agreement was exhibited by the respondent as Ext.4. 8. Finally, the learned appellate court decreed the suit of the respondent. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 10. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.” 11. The first appellate court continues to be a final court of facts. Pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal. The first appellate court is also the final court of law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of first appellate court even on questions on law unless such question of law be a substantial one. Page No.# 5/5 12. In the instant appeal, there are no such questions of law to be a substantial one. Therefore, the instant appeal as well as the connected Interlocutory Applications are dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant