RSA No.225 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.225 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:05.07.2010 M/s Naresh Kumar Malkiat Singh .... appellant Versus Pirthi Ram .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for recovery against the defendant-respondent was dismissed on the ground that appellant has failed to prove that he advanced any loan to the defendant-respondent. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that the loan amount was advanced by the appellant-firm to the respondent. Admittedly, the recovery suit has been filed on the basis of account books and the relevant entries in the account books were made by the Munim, whereas aforesaid Munim has not been produced as a witness to prove the aforesaid entries. Thus, in view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the findings RSA No.225 of 2010(O & M) 2 of fact recorded by the Courts below holding that appellant has failed to prove his case. No other point was urged. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. CM No.722-C of 2010 Since the appeal is being dismissed on merits, I find no reason to condone the delay of 47 days in filing this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.07.2010 neenu