The record is taken up for passing the necessary order. This is a suit for the recovery of money described in the schedule to the plaint. Perused the plaint, deposition given by P.W: 01-02, the documentary pieces of evidence submitted herewith, and the materials on the suit record.
Upon such perusal and consideration of the adduced shreds of evidence, it appears that the defendant was appointed as a unit accountant of NGO Shocheton and was responsible for collecting subscription and contribution money from the beneficiaries of its microcredit loan system. He was also to prepare the accounts by way of automation software of the financial information system. But, he kept that money of Taka 7, 14,147 out of 17,56,046 at varied dates in his custody with the intendment of embezzlement. The plaintiff’s claim also envisages that the defendant misappropriated said money within a period from 26.08.2014 to 25.02,2015 AD. It was also claimed that the defendant was obliged to deposit that money in the National Bank Ltd, Godagari, Rajshahi, but he breached his lawful obligation [PW-01 &02].
It also transpires in evidence [PW-01] that the defendant admitted in the affidavit that he did it unlawfully and was willing to pay back the same to this NGO [ext.: 1-9]. The plaintiffs through the shred of adduced evidence asserted that Shacheton is yet to get back the lost money once collected and misappropriated by the defendant. The PW-02 is also found to be in tune with the plaintiffs’ propositions and appears to be convincing too. Since the defendant neither submitted a written statement nor contested the suit in any other way, no evidence is led by the defendant concerning the suit land. As such, nothing is proved to the contrary.
Consequently, with being the facts and laws as discussed hereinbefore, it appears to the court that if these pieces of evidence are considered together, the plaintiff’s side comes up before the court with more convincing and persuasive evidentiary materials on the point that whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land to date. In short, it transpires that the plaintiff has standings on his own strength to prove his claims. Being the case as such, the balance of preponderance hereby redirects against the defendant. Hence, it cogently appears that there appears to be proved by unimpeachable evidence as well as sufficient implications that the defendant is liable to pay back the scheduled sum of money on the plaintiff’s behalf. And thus, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant. As such, it is decided that the plaintiffs may get the relief as prayed.
The court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence, it is ordered
that the suit is decreed
ex parte against the defendant without costs. It is hereby ordered that
plaintiff will get a decree for TK 7, 14,147 advanced by him (plaintiff) to the
defendant with eight percent simple interest per annum from the date of the
decree passed in the suit until the realization of the whole amount. The
defendant is also ordered to pay the above-mentioned money to the plaintiff
within 30 days from the date, failing which, the plaintiff may take steps in
accordance with the law.