RSA No. 2966 of 2007 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2966 of 2007 Date of decision:6th July, 2009 Jagtar Singh …….Appellant Versus Kamaljit Singh ………Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.2005 and 16.04.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sangrur, and the District Judge, Sangrur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appellant’s appeal. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,58,745/- on the averments that the defendant/appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 22.05.2000 evidenced by signed an entry to that effect in his Rokar Bahi. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was again borrowed on 30.05.2000 and a corresponding entry duly signed by the appellant was made in the Rokar Bahi. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was borrowed on 19.09.2000 and Rs. 500/- on 22.01.2001. The appellant has repaid a sum of RSA No. 2966 of 2007 - 2 - Rs.64,000/- but a balance of Rs. 1,93,500/- remains to be paid. The respondent claimed interest at the rate of 1-½ % per month. The defendant-appellant controverted the averments in the plaint and pleaded that he had sold his produce valued at Rs. 1,94,965.87 paise on 26.04.1997, Rs. 20,210/- on 29.04.1997 and Rs. 10,158/- on 1.05.1997, at the respondent's shop. The suit has been filed to misappropriate the appellant’s money as the appellant has stopped selling his produce at the respondent's shop. The learned trial court framed the following issues: “1. Whether defendant borrowed various amounts totaling Rs. 1,93,500/- from the plaintiff, which are regularly entered in the account books maintained by the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?OPP 3. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial court held that the respondent had proved the correctness of the entries in the Rokar Bahi. The defence set up by the appellant was rejected and therefore, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007, the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the appeal. RSA No. 2966 of 2007 - 3 - Counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 and Order 13 Rule 4 and 5 of the CPC make it obligatory, except in cases covered by the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, to produce the original account book together with a copy of the entry. By an amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court has added an explanation after sub rule(2) in Order 17, Rule 7 which provides that when the account book is written in a language other than English, the party producing the account book shall present a translation or a transliteration of the relevant entry and shall certify that it is a full and true translation or transliteration of the original entry. It is submitted that admittedly, the entry in the account books are in Landa Script and though the Punjabi translation of the original entries was produced, no certificate as required by the aforementioned provision was furnished by the respondent. It is prayed that in view of this error in the proceedings, the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.2005 and 16.04.2007 be set aside. It is further submitted that the interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization is excessive and should be reduced. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though in his written statement, the appellant denied the averments in the plaint but while appearing in the witness box, he admitted his signatures on the entries and also admitted that he had obtained Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent vide entry Ex.P1 and Rs.5,000/- vide entry Ex.P2. The appellant, however, stated that this amount was the price of his crop sold to the RSA No. 2966 of 2007 - 4 - respondent and therefore, as the entries stood proved, the onus to prove his stand lay upon the appellant. The appellant however, has not produced any evidence to establish his defence. It is further submitted that the respondent has filed a signed translation of the account books. PW-2 Satpal, the accountant has filed his affidavit stating that he has made the entries in the Rokar Bahi which are also signed by defendant no. 2. It is therefore, submitted that as the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 etc., have been fulfilled, the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit. It is prayed that in view of the fact that concurrent findings of recorded by courts below do not suffer from any error of law, the appeal be dismissed. It is however, stated that the respondent has no objection, if the future interest is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, the suit for recovery has been decreed by the trial court on the basis of entries in the Rokar Bahi, signed by the appellant. The entries in the account books are in landa script but a Punjabi translation of these entries was filed before the trial court. In addition, the accountant, PW-2 Satpal stated in his affidavit that he made the entries in the Rokar Bahi against which the appellant has affixed his signatures. It would also be necessary to mention here that while deposing as a witness, the appellant has admitted his signatures against the entries in the Rokar Bahi and therefore, RSA No. 2966 of 2007 - 5 - the argument that the requirements of Order 7 Rule 17, Order 13 Rules 4 and 5 have been violated do not arise. While admitting his signatures the appellant set up a defence that the entries in the Rokar Bahi relate to the farm produce sold by him. However, the appellant has not lead any cogent or reliable evidence to establish that the entries relate to the produce of crop sold by him. As a result, the courts below were right in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. Consequently, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the findings recorded by the courts below with respect to the principal amount due are affirmed. However, as counsel for the respondent has conceded that he has no objection, if future interest is reduced to 6% per annum, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are modified to the extent that from the date of the decree passed by the trial court upto its realisation, the principal amount due will bear future interest @6% per annum. With the above modifications, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th July, 2009 SKaushik