R.S.A. No. 692 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 692 of 2010 Date of decision : 4.2.2011 M/s Mittal Rice and General Mill and another ......Appellants Versus M/s Mohinder Singh Gurdarshan Singh .......Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendants used to purchase paddy from the plaintiff firm and regarding this the accounts were being maintained by the firm in due course of business. A sum of Rs.1,65,737/- including interest calculated up to 31.3.2004 was outstanding against the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the factum of purchase of paddy from the plaintiff firm, but it was averred that the R.S.A. No. 692 of 2010 2 accounts had been duly cleared by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,65,673.00 alongwith interest as pleaded in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is time bared ? OPD. 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2009, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 1,38,775/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum till recovery. Appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no reliance could be placed on the account books maintained by the plaintiff- firm in view of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Plaintiff had failed to aver in the plaint as to what was the principal amount and how much was the interest. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of “Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through LRs., 2000(1)RCR (Civil), 168 wherein it was held as under :- R.S.A. No. 692 of 2010 3 “It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed “account books i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the “regular course of business”. Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page- numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business.” Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the defendants had admitted the factum of purchase of paddy from the plaintiff-firm. The defendants had, however, failed to establish that they had cleared accounts. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under :- “Section 34: Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form when relevant : Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.” R.S.A. No. 692 of 2010 4 There is no quarrel with the proposition of law settled vide judgment in Ishwar Dass Jain's case (supra). However, each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the plaintiff had averred that the defendants had purchased paddy from the said firm. The said fact was admitted by the defendants in the written statement and it was averred that the account had been cleared vide cheques. However, the defendants had failed to establish that they had cleared the outstanding amounts. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly placed reliance on the accounts produced on record as Ex.P-1 to P-3. As per the said accounts the principal amount was ` 1,38,775/-. The Courts below have decreed the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-firm qua the principal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 4, 2011 Anand