RSA No.964 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.964 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.07.2009 Darshan Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Naresh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. S. S. Bhinder, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.72,000/-. Following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- 1) “Whether the entries in books of account alone are sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability? 2) Whether the debit voucher is a Negotiable Instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instrument Act? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are perverse? 4) Whether the judgment and decree passed without RSA No.964 of 2008 -2- framing the proper issues in a suit is sustainable in the eyes of law?” With regard to question No.1, it may be pointed out that apart from the original accounts book the plaintiff appeared himself in the witness box. Therefore, it cannot be said that liability has been charged only on account of the entries. With regard to question No.2, the fact remains that the debit voucher has been signed by the appellant; whether or not it is a Negotiable Instrument would not make any difference since the voucher merely evidences the liability of the appellant as has been rightly held by the learned lower Appellate Court. With regard to question No.3, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the said debit voucher mentions that Rs.70,000/- have been received by the appellant through cash whereas the case set up is that the appellant used to take goods on credit. Thus, learned counsel has argued that it is a case of misreading of evidence to such an extent so as to render the findings perverse. In my opinion, the salient factor is the fact that there is no evidence that the debit voucher has not been signed by the appellant. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the judgment of the Courts below on the execution of the debit voucher are either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of the evidence as to render the same perverse. No argument has been led on question No.4. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. RSA No.964 of 2008 -3- No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 27, 2009 JUDGE ashish