RSA No.2591 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2591 of 2009 Date of decision: August 4, 2011. M/s Om Parkash Satish Kumar ... Appellant(s) v. Darbara Singh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs to the suit. Plaintiffs are running business of commission agent in Grain Market (Mandi No.2), Abohar. It was stated that they were maintaining the account books and the entries made in the same are made in the regular and ordinary course of business. It is pleaded in the suit that the defendant was getting advance from the plaintiff from time to time for his needs and the amount so advanced, was recorded in the account books. In the plaint, details of various amounts advanced, have been given. It is stated that on 25.1.1997, all accounts of respondent-defendant were settled and first amount credited in the account books for payment on behalf of the defendant was recorded on 15.2.1997. From 15.2.1997 till 2.6.1997, advance of various amounts has been shown in account books. This Court RSA No.2591 of 2009 -: 2 :- need not to give details of various dates and amounts advanced as they have been aptly and amply noticed in para 1 by the trial court. It has also come on the record that the respondent was selling his wheat crop through the agency of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,11,137/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The trial court, after completion of the pleadings, had drawn the issues and the parties had led their evidence. The trial court held that the last loan of Rs.16,525/- was advanced on 4.5.1998 and the suit was filed on 28.5.2001. The court held that all entries made in the account books before 4.5.1998 cannot be made subject matter of the suit being time barred. The findings given by the trial court read as under:- “17. Now let us revert back to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand, though there is an evidence showing part payment towards debt, there was no written acknowledgment in support of such part payment by the debtor. The defendant is shown to have made part payment of Rs.16,525/- dated 4.5.1998 vide Ex.P41 but the alleged entry is not acknowledged either in the handwriting of defendant himself or signed by him. Even if it be assumed that a sum of Rs.16,525/- dated 4.5.1998 was rendered in the accounts of the plaintiff, then also period of limitation begins to run from 4.5.1998, then also suit for recovery was to be filed on 3.5.2001, but the present suit was filed on 28.5.2001. No other evidence has been led on behalf of the plaintiff to show that defendant has either acknowledged or confirmed the debt outstanding against him on or before RSA No.2591 of 2009 -: 3 :- 4.5.1998.” This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Shri A.K. Khungar, Counsel appearing for the appellant, has made following two submissions; firstly, that on 4.5.1998 when the loan was advanced, defendant has acknowledged the previous outstanding, however, on a pointed question made by this Court, he has failed to show any document to this effect. Thus, this Court is hesitant to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact that there was no acknowledgment of previous debt on 4.5.1998. Secondly, it is submitted that since there were ongoing transactions, this Court should assume that each time when loan was advanced, there was an acknowledgment of previous outstanding as it was a current account. Admittedly, appellant-plaintiffs are neither the bankers nor money lenders; they are carrying business of commission agent whereas respondent-defendant is a farmer who was selling his agricultural produce through the commission agent shop of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff had maintained any current account. Thus, taking totality of circumstances, this Court will not be in a position to disturb the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts below as there was no acknowledgment of outstanding amount on 4.5.1998, especially when Counsel for the appellant has failed to raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, for consideration of this Court during course of arguments. There being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 4, 2011. Judge kadyan