RSA No. 1479 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1479 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2011 M/s GM Decorators ........ Appellant Versus M/s Khemka Containers Ltd. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. CM No. 4122-C of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CM No. 4121-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 160 days in refiling the instant appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1479 of 2011 Maqsood Ahmed, proprietor of M/s GM Decorators, preferred this Regular Second Appeal, to challenge the concurrent findings of both the Courts' below. Main suit for recovery was filed by the appellant on the allegation that against the valid and written work order, appellant had RSA No. 1479 of 2011 (O&M) -2- completed the work of the premises of the respondent-defendant w.e.f 27.1.1996 and the aforesaid work was completed on 26.3.1996. Bills No. 147 dated 28.3.1996 for ` 46,065/- and No. 149 dated 2.4.1996 for ` 8460/- total amounting to ` 54,525/- were submitted on 11.9.1996 but no payment was made by the respondent-defendant despite acknowledging its liability. Allegation of the respondent-defendant is that nothing is due to the appellant. After going through the evidence on file, both the Courts' below have rejected the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent- defendant admitted that work was executed by the appellant but entire payment was made. Respondent-defendant was required to produce documentary evidence to show that the entire payment due to the appellant was released but after going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct one. According to the pleadings of the parties, work was executed by the appellant in the year 1996. Bills No. 147 and 149, were also issued in the months of March and April, 1996 whereas main suit was instituted in the month of January, 2002. Original bills are not on the file. If the bills were sent to the respondent-defendant then no application was filed to summon the original record. If respondent- defendant was not in a position to produce the original bills then no application to lead secondary evidence to approve the bills in question. No official of the respondent-defendant was summoned to state that RSA No. 1479 of 2011 (O&M) -3- payment due was acknowledged. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by both the Courts' below. No substantial question of law is involved and no scope for interference. For the reasons recorded above, instant Regular Second Appeal, without merits is dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE