R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.8.2009 Ajaib Singh ......Appellant Versus M/s Bhullar and Brothers and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Premjeet Kalia, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs - respondents filed a suit for recovery, which was partly decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2007. Aggrieved by the same both the parties went in appeal impugning the part of judgment giving findings against them. Learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2007, while accepting the appeal of the plaintiffs, had dismissed the appeal filed by the R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 2 defendant and held that the entry Ex.P-12 was not forged. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. M/s Bhullar and brothers commission agents, Grain Market, Khamano Mandi and others filed main suit for recovery of Rs.1,83, 898/- against Ajaib Singh defendant on the allegations that plaintiff No.1 is sole proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s Bhullar and brothers commission agents, Grain Market, Khamano Mandi and plaintiff No.2 is its sole proprietor. Plaintiffs are carrying on the business of commission agents. Defendant had dealings with the plaintiffs. During the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 defendant sold paddy worth Rs. 1,23,034-02 paise at the shop of the plaintiff and obtained Rs. 1,40,965-98 paise from the plaintiffs. There was balance outstanding against the defendant on 31.3.2003. On 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 defendant borrowed Rs.16,000/- on 16.4.2003 and Rs.1,15,000/- on 19.4.2003 from the plaintiffs. A sum of Rs.1,48,931-96P is due from the defendant and after adding interest on this amount total amount recoverable from the defendant comes to Rs.1,83,898/- which he failed to repay to the plaintiff which led to the filing of the R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 3 present suit. 3. Upon notice defendant appeared, filed written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. That the suit is time barred. That suit is not maintainable in the present form and is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. That civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is admitted that defendant used to sell his produce at the shop of the plaintiffs but plaintiffs always played fraud upon the defendant by forging his signatures on J forms to show payment of crop sold at the shop of the plaintiffs. In fact, the amount of defendant is due from the plaintiffs. Defendant did not receive any amount from the plaintiffs as loan. Plaintiffs have filed this suit as a counter blast to the suit for recovery filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs. Other allegations in the plaint were denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,83898/- along with interest from the defendant? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 4 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the alleged documents of plaintiffs are forged and fabricated and created documents ? OPP 5. Relief. ” Heard. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is “ whether the finding of the learned District Judge is perverse and based on misreading of evidence?” The plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of entries in the ledger/accounts books. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, placed reliance on entries in the accounts book Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19. Both the sides in order to prove their case led their evidence. Defendant examined PW-2 Navdeed Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert, who after comparing the entry Ex.P-12 with the entries Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10, opined vide his report that the signatures on the questioned entry and the standard signatures did not tally with each other. Learned trial Court held that the entry Ex.P- 12 did not bear the signatures of the defendant in view of the report of the handwriting expert and it was further held that even a perusal of the signatures on entry Ex.P-12 with the other signatures on the entries proved on record, it was evident that entry Ex.P-12 had not been signed by the defendant. Learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff except qua entry Ex.P-12. The said finding of the R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 5 trial Court has been reversed by the learned District Judge on irrelevant considerations. The report of the handwriting expert examined by the defendant had not been countered by the plaintiffs and hence, it could not have been brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Records of the trial Court were summoned and a perusal of the same reveals that signatures on entry Ex.P-12 do not match with the other entries. So far as other entries in question are concerned, the plaintiffs had been successful in proving the same. Moreover, during the course of arguments, the dispute was raised with regard to entry Ex.P-12 only by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the signatures on entry Ex.P-12 were not genuine, the entire case of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. There is no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Since the plaintiffs had been successful in proving the remaining entries except Ex.P-12, the suit qua other entries could not be dismissed merely because the entry Ex.P-12 was not proved to have been signed by the defendant. Learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff qua entry Ex.P-12. The defendant had admitted his dealings with the plaintiffs. The defendant has taken his signatures on entries Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 as his standard signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures on entry Ex.P-12 and the remaining entries were not thus disputed by the plaintiffs as they R.S.A.No. 3439 of 2007 (O&M) 6 were not got examined from the handwriting expert. Learned trial Court had thus rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs except qua entry Ex.P-12. Learned District Judge, on the other hand, had erred in allowing the suit of the plaintiffs qua entry Ex.P-12 and the finding of the learned District Judge, in this regard, is perverse and against the evidence on record. Hence, the substantial question of law arising in this appeal is answered accordingly. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court are modified to the extent that the suit of the plaintiffs qua entry Ex.P- 12 is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are upheld. (SABINA) JUDGE August 28, 2009 anita