RSA No.1841 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1841 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Atma Singh and another .....Appellants v. M/s.Sumti Kumar @ Sumit Kumar and brothers .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31.1.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 30.7.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sirsa, decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below as well as the record of the Courts below, which was summoned. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `3,70,000/- including interest on the ground that appellants-defendants had been borrowing specified amount from respondent-plaintiff on different dates. The entry used to be made in the Bahis, used to be maintained in due course of business by respondent-plaintiff and used to be thumb-marked by the RSA No.1841 of 2011(O&M) -2- appellants-defendants in token of the receipt of the said amount. Suit was contested by appellants-defendants. It has been admitted that there was dealing between the parties as appellant no.1 used to sell their agricultural produce at the shop of respondent-plaintiff and, however, plea has been taken that in the year 1997 he stopped selling the agricultural produce and settled the accounts, after selling his land measuring 3-1/2 acres. Plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff used to take thumb impressions/signatures of the defendants on some blank papers and it might have been converted in the shape of account books showing the amount in dispute standing against them. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for `3,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that original Bahis were never produced before the Court and the same are also not part of the file and that only certified copy of the same has been produced, which is part of the file and hence, it is contended that certified copy of the Bahis maintained by private firm cannot be admitted into evidence. On the point he has placed reliance upon Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs v. Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 434 and Rattan Singh v. Sagarmal, (2005-3) PLR 152. So far as legal proposition as held in the aforementioned authorities is concerned, there is no dispute. In Ishwar Dass Jain's case (supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that under Section 34 of the RSA No.1841 of 2011(O&M) -3- Evidence Act, 1872, sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed `account books' , i.e., original and if they are kept in the `regular course of business' and that such sanctity cannot be attached to private extracts of alleged account books, where the original account books are not filed in the court. However, in the present case, there is an order of learned trial Court dated 4.1.2003, which shows that original bahi entries were produced before the Court and the same were seen and signed by the court and the copies of the same were taken on record. It has also come in the cross- examination of one of the witnesses of respondent-plaintiff, i.e., PW2 Tarsem Kumar, husband of proprietor of respondent-plaintiff-firm Prem Lata that Bahis were produced in the Court and the same also used to be assessed for tax. There is no suggestion put to any of the witnesses of the respondent-plaintiff nor to the respondent-plaintiff in the cross-examination that the original Bahis were not produced at the time of examination of these witnesses. Both the Court below have given specific finding on this point. Learned first appellate Court has observed in para 11 of the judgment that respondent-plaintiff has produced the original record relating to Bahi entries firstly on 4.1.2003, on which date plaint was presented before learned trial Court and the Court had seen the original bahi entries and signed the same and again produced the original, when their copies were got proved from the witnesses. It has also been observed that appellants-defendants at no stage dared to challenge their signatures or thumb impressions over these bahi entires. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any RSA No.1841 of 2011(O&M) -4- illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Court below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 21.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge