422 1 4 4 4 Reclular Second Apoeal Noe 4642 of 2010 lOSMI IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ene Date of Decision2 March I 1 2011 tr Reqular Second Aopeal Noe 4642 of 2010 lOSMIe 0 U Mlsa Dilbagh Rai Pardeep Kumar AppelIant t5 VERSUS I Mlse Shadi Ram and sons Respondent Z 2 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL I Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be aliowed to see the judgment7 Cll 2e To be referred to the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedIll the Digest7 7 Z Presentl MrAmit Rawal Advocate Il for the appellant MOHINDER PAL Je DefendantappellantMls Dilbagh Rai Pardeep Ku ma r through DilbaghRai its proprietorlpartner lereinafter referred to as the appellantl IS in second appeal aggrieved againstthe judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below wherebythe suit filed by plaintifespondent MlsaShadi Ram and sons throughShadi Ram one of the partnerlereinafter referred 1 Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.20 11: 17 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 423 4 3 e2 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4642 of 2010 l0SMle to as the respondent for recovery of Rs2273677 Rs l 8263908 as balance price of goods and Rs472829 being interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from lA 1998 to 20719991 with future interest till actual reaiization was decreed The trial Court granted future interest at the rate 0 of 12 percent per annum whereas Iower appellateCourt reduced C0 it to 9 per cent per annum and further held that the I C5 respondent will be entitled to interest on the principal amount I of Rsl8263908 at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from Z 61 1999 till passing of the decree by the trial Court by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the triai Court to this extent I After hearing the Iearned counsel for the parties and Z perusingthe impugnedjudgmentsI do not find any g rou nd wh ich CO may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact 7 Z recorded by both the Courts below so far as merits of the case are concerned It could not be pointed out by the Iearned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on m isreadingof evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration The appellant who had been purchasinggoods from the respondent from time to time some times used to make part payments which used to be credited by the respondent in the name of the appeliant in the account books maintained Ill ordinaryand regular course of business After adjustment of the Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.20 11: 17 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 424 S 3 8 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 4642 of 2010 lOSMI paymentsmade by the appellant to the respondent a sum of RS18263908 was fou nd outstandingaga inst the appela nt As per agreement the appellant was also Iiable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the a mou nt due 1 Documents Exhibits P3 PA P5 and P6 relate to the account of 0 the appellantmaintained by the respondentin his account books 0 These documents show that an amount of Rs 18263908 I C5 was outstanding against the appellant as on 611999 I AppellantDilbaghRai who appearedin the witness box as Dl Z admitted having business dealingswith the respondent Once the business dealings had been admitted by the appellant with the I respondentit was for the appelIant to show by Ieading reliable documentaryevidence that nothingwas due to the respondent Z from h im appelIan a nd that he appella ntl had made all m payments of the goods purchasedby him from the respondent 7 Z The appellant failed to Iead any reliable evidence in this regard No fault therefore can be found with the findingsrecorded by both the Courts below with regard to the fact that Rs 18263908 were due to the respondentfrom the appellant as on 6 1999 Under the circumstances I do not find any patent illegality or irregularityin the findings recorded by the Courts below on merits of the case which may give rise to any substantial quesUon of Iaw in the present appeal Resultantly this appeal IS hereby dismissed being without any merit However the respondent will be entitled to charge interest on the amount of Rsl8263908 Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.20 11: 17 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 425 0 SV d 4m Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4642 of 2010 lOSMIe outstanding against the appellant as on 61999 at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 6 1 1999 from the appellant till its actual payment There shall be no order as to costs 1 e 1 0 c MOHINER PAL I 2011 JUDGE 1 0 ak J U I 0 8 Z I 1 2D2 Z e 9e r 7 Z Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.20 11: 17 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document