Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010013202016 2026:GAU-AS:7226 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/101/2016 SHRI NUR UDDIN AHMED and ANR S/O. LATE BAHUT ALI SARKAR 2: SMTI MONSURA KHATUN W/O SHRI NUR UDDIN AHMED BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE AND ARE R/O VILL. ISLAM NAGAR P.O. A.M.CO. ROAD DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS SHRI HAMIDUL ISLAM S/O. LATE HAJRAT ALI FAKIR, R/O. VILLAGE- CHARBIDYAPARA, P.O. A.M.CO. ROAD, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A B CHOWDHURY, MR.M A CHOUDHURY,MR.M K SHARMA,MISS.P M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A HUSSAIN, ,MRM H AHMED, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. This appeal, under Section 100 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2014 and decree dated 20.12.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri (first appellate court hereinafter), in Money Appeal No. 01/2011. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 09.12.2014 and decree dated 20.12.2014, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri (trial court hereinafter), in Money Suit No. 34/2007. 4. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010, the learned trial court had decreed the suit with cost by holding that the respondent herein shall recover a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from the appellants herein with interest @ 1% per annum w.e.f. 19.09.2004. 5. The parties of the aforesaid title suit is adopted herein this appeal to avoid confusion. 6. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated here in below :- “The respondent herein, as plaintiff, namely Hamidul Islam, had instituted a money suit, being Money Suit No. 34/2007, against the appellants herein, who were the defendants in the said title suit, namely Nur Uddin Ahmed and Monsura Khatun, alleging that they took a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from him. But, they failed to repay the same. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, being the husband and wife and also his relatives, approached him for a loan of Rs. 90,000/- and accordingly, he advanced a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 19.09.2004, to the defendants, fixing the rate of interest @ 1% per annum. The defendants had executed a bond for repayment of the said loan, but they failed to Page No.# 3/6 repay the same even after repeated demands. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff had instituted the money suit, before the learned trial court, for recovery of the loan amount. The defendants did not file their written statement. However, they were allowed to participate in the trial and accordingly, they had participated in the trial and cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiff, but did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned trial court had decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants had preferred an appeal, before the learned first appellate court, being Money Suit No. 01/2011 and after hearing both the parties, learned first appellate court had formulated a point for determination, i.e. (i) whether the learned trial court had rightly held that the plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs. 90,000/- and is entitled to recover the same from the defendants’. Thereafter, hearing arguments of both the parties and also considering the evidence, so adduced before the learned trial court, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree, so passed by the learned trial court.“ 6.1. Being aggrieved, the defendants approached this court by filing the present appeal, which is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Exhibit – 1 is inadmissible in evidence being allegedly not stamped?” 7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that Exhibit – 1 is inadmissible in evidence as the same was not stamped and he referring to Section Page No.# 4/6 7 of the Assam Money Lenders’ (Amendment) Act, 1968, submits that the plaintiff is not a money lender, registered under the Assam Money Lenders’ Act 1934 and that the plaintiff has to maintain an account for cash borrower and also furnish such borrower every year with legible statement of accounts in the prescribed manner, signed by the money lender or his authorized agent of any balance or amount that may be outstanding against such borrower on such dates and such statement of accounts shall indicate all transactions in respect of the loan entered into during the year to which the statement relates. But, no such register was produced and exhibited before the court by the plaintiff and under such circumstances, Mr. Sharma has submitted that the substantial question of law, as formulated herein above, is involved and therefore, he has contended to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned courts below. 8. Per-contra, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the issue raised before this Court, by learned counsel for the appellant herein, is being raised for the first time and no such issue was raised before the learned courts below. Mr. Ahmed further submits that before the learned trial court, the defendants had failed to file any written statement, for which, they were only allowed to participate in the trial and they had cross-examined the witnesses and that at no point of time, the defendants had disputed the Exhibit – 1. Further, the plaintiff had examined the witnesses and exhibited Exhibit – 1, the bond executed by the defendants, while taking loan of Rs. 90,000/- from the plaintiff and under such circumstances, Mr. Ahmed submits that no substantial question of law is involved here in this appeal and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this appeal. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal as well as the documents Page No.# 5/6 placed on record and also perused the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned first appellate court. 10. The basic facts, herein this appeal, are not in dispute. The respondent herein had instituted the money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on the basis of Exhibit – 1, a bond executed by the appellants herein, while taking a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from the respondent herein. 10.1. It is also not in dispute that the appellants herein did not file any written statement before the learned trial court, but they were allowed to participate in the trial and they had cross-examined the witnesses. Further, the issue of money laundering and requirement of registration and furnishing accounts are raised for the first time before this Court, no such plea was raised before the learned trial court. 11. It is well settled that the appellant cannot be allowed to setup a new plea in second appeal, or raise a new issue not supported by the pleadings or evidence on record. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Panchugopal Baruah & Ors. vs. Umesh Ch. Goswami and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 713, wherein it has been held that new points cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. In that view of the matter, the appellants herein are not entitled to raise the issue of registration by the respondent herein under the Money Lenders’ Act before this Court. 12. It also appears that Exhibit – 1 is a bond, executed by the defendants, while taking the loan of Rs. 90,000/- from the plaintiff and plaintiff had exhibited the same before the learned trial court. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment and decree that the learned First Appellate Court had recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the plaintiff had examined PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 and evidence of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 remained unchallenged and un-rebutted in Page No.# 6/6 respect of execution of Exhibit – 1 and through the Exhibit – 1, the plaintiff had proved that he had advanced the loan of Rs. 90,000/- to the defendants with interest @ 1% per annum. Even through the cross-examination of PW1, PW2 & PW3, the defendants never put any suggestion that the Exhibit – 1 is a forged document, though the same bears no stamp. 12.1. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment and decree that the learned First Appellate Court has also recorded a finding of fact to the effect that it appears that the said bond was admitted by the learned trial court, even after realization of proper stamp. 13. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion and finding, the substantial question of law, as formulated herein above, is found to be not at all involved in this appeal. 14. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this RSA stands dismissed. 15. Send down the record of the learned courts below, with a copy of this judgment and order. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant