introduced one Subrata Sarkar, who used to carry business of construction of building and requested the defendant to supply materials as might be required by him. The plaintiff assured to be a guarantor on behalf of Sri Subrata Sarkar. Sri Sarkar had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the defendant arising out of a transaction which the defendant had with Sri Sarkar. The defendant further alleged that he sought intervention of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff advised Sri Sarkar to clear the dues of the defendant. On such advice, Sri Sarkar agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- within March 1, 2001 and the balance Rs. 4,00,000/- within April 2001. Thereafter the plaintiff persuaded the defendant to allow it to avail the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be paid to the defendant against the fuel bills as the plaintiff required the said amount for its yearly realisation and the defendant also agreed to such proposal of the plaintiff. Sri Sarkar, accordingly, paid Rs. 3,00,000/- through banker’s cheque drawn in the name of the plaintiff with intimation to the defendant over phone. Sri Sarkar further paid Rs. 3,00,000/to the defendant by way of another cheque dated April 2, 2001, but the said cheque was dishonoured.
