RSA No. 4303 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4303 of 2008 Date of decision: 8.5.2009 Sukhdev Singh … Appellant Versus M/s Healthy Crops (P) Ltd. … Respondent Present: Mr. M.S.Uppal, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present regular second appeal is directed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit for recovery preferred by the plaintiff has been partly decreed for Rs.74167/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of suit till actual realization of the decretal amount. Plaintiff-Company in its suit pleaded that it is running the business of insecticides and seeds at Mansa and used to maintain books of accounts wherein entries regarding regular business of the firm and balance is struck, for being produced before the Income Tax, Sales Tax and Government Departments. It is pleaded that defendant Sukhdev Singh, an agriculturist by profession used to purchase insecticides and seeds from the plaintiff. In June, 1997, the defendant settled his account and at that time, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was due towards the defendant which he paid to the plaintiff on 23.2.1998. During that period, the defendant purchased insecticides, seeds etc. from the plaintiff on credit basis for different amount on different dates. The defendant also signed on the bills of above-stated articles and entries in this regard were further made in the books of accounts of the plaintiff-Company. After deduction of recoverable amount, a sum of Rs.19400/- was due towards the defendant and the balance was RSA No. 4303 of 2008 2 forwarded in the next financial year. Further, in the year 1998-99, the defendant purchased insecticides, seeds etc. on credit basis from the plaintiff for different amount on different dates, and the bills of these entries were issued to the defendant, which bear the signatures of the defendant. During the said year, on 3.4.1998, defendant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- in cash and accordingly, after deduction of recoverable amount, a sum of Rs.98042/- was due towards the defendant till the end of the year. According to the plaintiff, as per oral agreement between the parties, it is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount due i.e. Rs.98042/-. Thus, in all the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.1,15,682/-, but the defendant refused to pay the same despite the issuance of demand/legal notice. Upon notice of the suit, defendant in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff and rather stated that the payment of insecticides so purchased by him has already been made to the plaintiff. Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties on record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.5.2007 after analyzing the evidence on record observed that due to typographical mistake the plaintiff had wrongly claimed Rs.98042/- as principal amount whereas it should have been Rs.78042/-, for which the plaintiff had also made an application for amendment of para 12 of its plaint wherein the said typographical mistake had occurred. Accordingly, while making calculations and discarding certain bills, the trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held it entitled to recovery of Rs.74167/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence and record have concurrently found that the plaintiff has been regularly maintaining accounts books and had not filed the present suit on false allegations. It has been observed that it was only due to typographical mistake that the amount was typed as Rs.98042/- instead of Rs.78042/- which stands corroborated from the entries in the accounts books maintained by the plaintiff company. The bills on the basis of which the RSA No. 4303 of 2008 3 plaintiff-Company has based its claim, are also duly signed by the defendant and as such, he cannot wriggle out of his liability. In my view, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit in the above manner after due evaluation of the evidence produced by the parties. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. May 8, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE RSA No. 4303 of 2008 4 a sum of Rs.2475/- on 20.8.1997, Rs.475/- on 30.8.1997, Rs.965/- and Rs.160/- on 1.9.1997, Rs.3060/- on 5.9.1997, Rs.3475/- on 13.9.1997, Rs.2910/- on 18.9.1997, Rs.720/- on 26.9.1997, Rs.2240/- on 6.11.1997, Rs.1570/- on 11.11.1997, Rs.480/- on 1.12.1997, Rs.240/- and Rs.630/- on 27.2.1998/-.