RSA No. 2751 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2751 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27-07-2009 Gurseb Singh and others ......Appellants Versus M/s Raunak Ram Sudarshan Pal .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby a decree for recovery of Rs.44,750/- was passed against the defendant-appellants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 29.3.2001 and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.70,000/- pointing out that by the end of the Financial Year 1999-2000, there was a debit balance of Rs.7400/- against the defendants, who purchased pesticides and insecticides from the plaintiff-firm on the credit basis, therefore, the defendants were making part payment from time to time. The defendants also borrowed some money on cash and the defendants were making part payment of cash amount as well. On the basis of the transactions between RSA No. 2751 of 2009 (2) the parties, it was alleged that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.44,750/-i.e., the amount due and acknowledged by the defendants in the account books. The plaintiff also claimed interest @ 2% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. In the written statement, the defendants have taken up a plea that the account of the plaintiff was forged, false and fabricated and the defendants have never purchased pesticides on credit. The suit of the plaintiff was false; baseless and barred by limitation and no amount was due against the defendants. PW1-Raj Kumar is the partner of the plaintiff, who has produced photocopies of the bills of the defendant for purchase of pesticides. Exhibit P.57 is the acknowledgment of the defendants in the account books of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also produced its cash book and ledger. On the basis of the perusal of the account books of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court found that a sum of Rs.44,750/- is due and payable by the defendants. Such decree is affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that the sale of pesticides or insecticides on credit is evidenced by the signatures of the defendants on the bills. But the bill on the basis of which the plaintiff has claimed the amount due from the defendant, does not bear signature of the defendants. It is also argued that the plaintiff has denied that the signatures of the defendants were not taken in the cash book, whereas Exhibit P.57 is an acknowledgment produced by the plaintiff in the account books of the plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below have erred in law in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of such contradictory and unreliable RSA No. 2751 of 2009 (3) evidence. It is also argued that the spacing in the account books shows that the account books are not being maintained in the normal course of business as there is a possibility of interpolation in the account books. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are in the realm of re-appreciation of evidence. The plaintiff in his affidavit has deposed as to which of the bills are signed by defendant-Gursahib Singh and as to which bills are signed by Sarabjit Singh defendant. Mere fact that PW1 has denied that signatures of the defendants on the account books of the plaintiff, will not be sufficient to dispel his entire evidence as one line in cross-examination cannot be read out of context. Exhibit P.57 is the acknowledgment of the amount due in the account books of the plaintiff signed by the defendants. Similarly, the argument that there is no gap in the account books of the plaintiff is not tenable. Some gap in the account books of the plaintiff by itself is not sufficient to hold that the account books were not maintained in the normal course of business. There is no other circumstance on record to doubt the correctness of the account books produced by the plaintiff. In fact, the findings of fact are sought to be disputed in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidence. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 27-07-2009 ds