R.S.A. No.1209 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1209 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 6th July, 2009 Gurmeet Singh ......Appellant Versus M/s Ved Parkash Birla Chand, Merchants and Commission Agents, Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla through Surinder Kumar. ......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. Civil Misc. No. 3583-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 3585-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 302 days in refiling the revision is condoned. C.M., stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Misc. No. 3584-C of 2009 Prayer in the application, filed under Section 149 of the CPC is for extension of time to make good the deficiency of the court fees. The delay if any, in making good the deficiency in court fees is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of accordingly. R.S.A. No.1209 of 2009(O&M) 2 The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 27.03.2006 and 1.06.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Malerkotla and the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 1,03,200/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- as principal and the balance amount as interest upto the date of filing of the suit, alleging that the appellant had raised loans from him from time to time duly evidenced by entries in his account register, known as a “Rokar Bahi” duly signed by the appellant. However, despite repeated demands the appellant failed to repay the amount. In response to the suit, the appellant denied the “Rokar Bahi” entries and his signature. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant borrowed the amount from plaintiff, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the entries in the account books relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fictitious?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount, alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP 4. Relief. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced R.S.A. No.1209 of 2009(O&M) 3 and the arguments addressed, the learned trial court held that as the entries in the Rokar Bahi, duly signed by the appellant had been proved on record as Ex:P1 to P6, it was clearly established that the appellant had raised loans which he had failed to return. Consequently, the suit was decreed with future interest @2% per month. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree the appellant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Sangrur, partly allowed the appeal by reducing interest from 2% per month to 1% per month. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has failed to prove the entries in the Rokar Bahi, and the Khata Register. A presumption of truth does not attach to entries in private account books and therefore, the courts below have committed an error of law in raising a presumption of truth, while accepting that these private account books reflect loans raised by the appellant. It is further argued that the appellant's signatures were forged. I have heard counsel for the appellant, considered the arguments addressed and perused the impugned judgments. I find no reason whether in law or in fact to acceed to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have returned concurrent findings of fact that the Rokar Bahi and the Khata Register contain legal and valid entries reflecting the loans raised by the appellant. It would also be necessary to mention here that the appellant did not bother to step into the witness box to deny his R.S.A. No.1209 of 2009(O&M) 4 signatures in these books or to support the averments in his written statement. The loans having been proved by reliable evidence and the appellant having failed to lead any evidence the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit and appeal. Even otherwise, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant are more questions of fact. Dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th July, 2009 SKaushik