RSA No.3649 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3649 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Harmander Singh .....Petitioner v. M/s Gurdas Singh Balwinder Singh Commission Agent .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10323-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.10322-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3649 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 21.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, partly allowing the appeal filed by appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 3.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Abohar, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone RSA No.3649 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `2,98,000/- alongwith cost and interest on the ground that appellant- defendant used to borrow amount from respondent-plaintiff from time to time and that respondent-plaintiff used to maintain account in due course of business and that every entry used to be signed by present appellant- defendant and that there was an outstanding balance of `2,35,210/-, which appellant-defendant not paid. Hence, this suit for recovery of the said amount alongwith `62,790/- as interest alongwith future interest. Appellant-defendant filed written statement denying the fact that he ever borrowed any amount from respondent-plaintiff. He has also taken the plea that Bahi entries are forged one. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove that a sum of `2,35,210/- were advanced to present appellant-defendant from time to time. The original Bahi entries containing the signatures of appellant- defendant were produced and hence suit was decreed for recovery of principal amount of `2,35,210/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 18.4.2003 till the date of filing of suit and @9% per annum from filing of suit till the date of decree and @6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by appellant-defendant, was partly allowed and appellant-defendant was directed to pay the decretal amount of `2,35,210/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 18.4.2003 till the passing of the decree and future interest RSA No.3649 of 2011(O&M) -3- @ 6% per annum till actual realization. However, still dis-satisfied with judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court, the present appellant-defendant filed the present regular second appeal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that it is not believable that within a span of 3-4 days a sum of `2,09,000/- would be advanced by respondent-plaintiff to the appellant- defendant. It is further contended that even no purpose of advance has also been mentioned against the requisite Bahi entires. It is contended that he used to sell his produce in the shop of respondent-plaintiff and however, price of produce sold has not been reflected in the account books. However, no reliable evidence has been produced by appellant-defendant in order to prove this assertion. Besides self serving statement of present appellant- defendant, there are statements of his son and brother. Only other independent witness has deposed regarding the fact that the present appellant-defendant used to sell his produce at the shop of respondent- plaintiff. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that account books used to be maintained in regular course of business by respondent-plaintiff- firm. All the entries contained signatures of present appellant-defendant. He is not an illiterate person. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of RSA No.3649 of 2011(O&M) -4- law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 28.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge