-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 731 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 731 of 2009 (O&M). Gian Chand ... Appellant VERSUS M/s. Indrumal Jelli Ram through Jelli Ram son of Indrumal, sole proprietor of M/s. Indrumal Jelli Ram, Commission Agents ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-appellant Gian Chand is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery was decreed and -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 731 of 2009 (O&M). the plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to recover Rs.2,42,760/- from the defendant-appellant along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of advance till realization of the decretal amount. It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the defendant-appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,42,760/- from the plaintiff-respondent, who was doing the business of Commission Agent at Anaj Mandi, Narwana. The `Bahi' entry (Exhibit P.1) shows that the defendant-appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from the plaintiff- respondent on 31.8.2000. This entry is stamped and signed by the defendant-appellant in token of its correctness. Similarly, as is evident from the entry Exhibit P.2, the plaintiff-respondent had advanced Rs.2760/- to the defendant-appellant on 30.9.2000. Megh Raj (P.W.2), who is Scribe of these entries, proved the same on record. Plaintiff-respondent Jelli Ram appeared as P.W.1 in support of his case. The evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent is corroborated by the entries in the account books, as noticed above. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 731 of 2009 (O&M). appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak