RSA No.308 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.308 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.11.2009 M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills and others ....Appellants Vs. M/s Mittal Traders ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 14.12.2007 and 30.7.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur and the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,15,089.13 by pleading that this amount is payable by the defendant/appellants for supply of paddy for the years 2000-01, as detailed in the plaint. In response to the averments in the plaint, the appellants denied the averments in the plaint and pleaded that they had cleared their accounts towards the plaintiff-firm and in fact an amount of Rs.1,15,177/- is due to the appellants from the respondent firm. It was further pleaded that the RSA No.308 of 2009 2 appellant did not purchase any paddy in respect to the items No.8 and 9 mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.9,15,089.13 with future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide order dated 30.7.2008, the Additional District Judge,Ferozepur, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the only dispute is whether any paddy was supplied with respect to the amounts mentioned at Sr. Nos.8 and 9. The onus to establish that paddy was supplied as alleged lay upon the respondent. The respondent has not produced any evidence in support of this plea. In the absence of Form I, the courts below could not have held that paddy was supplied with respect to the amount mentioned at Sr.nos.8 and 9. It is also submitted that the courts below could not have placed reliance on the appellants' account statement Ex.PX, as it was not put to the appellants, when they stepped into the witness box. It is argued that as Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), postulates that account statements are not conclusive evidence of a transaction or the amount due, the courts below should have dismissed the suit. It is submitted that the question of law arises for consideration is “whether in view of Section 34 of the Act, the account statement Ex.PX could have been taken into consideration, while decreeing the suit against the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgements and decrees considered the arguments advanced. RSA No.308 of 2009 3 Admittedly, the respondent supplied paddy to the appellant during the years 2000 and 2001. The bone of contention between the parties is the amount mentioned at Sr. nos.8 and 9 in the plaint. The appellants allege that the respondent has failed to prove that any paddy was supplied against these entries and, therefore, the findings based upon the appellant's account statement Ex.PX are liable to be set aside. The argument based upon Section 34 of the Act is fundamentally flawed. Section 34 of the Act postulates that entries in books of accounts are relevant, but shall not by themselves be sufficient to charge any person with liability. In essence, Section 34 of the Act, restates a fundamental rule of evidence, entries in the books of accounts shall not form the sole basis for holding a person liable without corroboration. In the present case, apart from the account statement Ex.PX, which is admittedly a statement filed by the appellants before the Income Tax authorities, there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the account statement Ex.PX. It would be necessary to mention here that licencees of a Market Committee are required to file Form M before a Market Committee, recording sale and purchase of food grains. The register with respect to the form is admittedly silent as to any transaction with respect to Sr. nos.8 and 9. However, the register maintained by the auction recorder contains entries dated 6.10.2000 and 9.10.2000, reflecting the amount of sale and purchase of paddy, which is subject matter of Sr. nos.8 and 9. It would also be necessary to mention that at no stage of the proceedings, has the appellants denied the correctness of the account statement Ex.PX or produced the correct statement of account. In fact, during the course of proceedings, the appellants failed, despite opportunities to produce their income tax returns RSA No.308 of 2009 4 or account statement of the subsequent years on a plea that the account statements were not traceable. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below holding that the respondent has successfully established the supply of paddy equal to the amount reflected at Sr. nos.8 and 9, the courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 19.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE