RSA No. 1544 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1544 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.07.2009 Sadhu Singh s/o Kabul Singh, r/o village Kharkan, Tehsil Guhla District Kaithal. ... Appellant Versus M/s Lakhmi Chand Rakesh Kumar, Commission Agents, Ramthali, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, through Lakhmi Chand s/o Panna Lal, r/o Cheeka its proprietor. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Divya Sarup, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 23.01.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 20.04.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The defendant/appellant, used to sell his food grains, through the commission agency of the plaintiff/respondent. He also used to borrow advances, from time to time, from the plaintiff/respondent, as per his requirements, for raising crops and other expenses, with a promise to clear RSA No. 1544 of 2008 2 the same, out of the sale proceeds, by selling the food-grains, through the plaintiff concern, at the time of next crop. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/-, Rs. 2 lacs, and Rs. 20,000/-, on 14.06.1999, 18.06.1999, and 19.06.1999, respectively, from the plaintiff firm, in cash, and entries, in that regard, in the account books of the plaintiff were duly made. The entries dated 18.06.1999 and 19.06.1999, were duly signed by the defendant/appellant, admitting the correctness thereof, and receipt of the amount mentioned therein. However, the defendant failed to sell his food- grains, with a view to clear the amount, borrowed by him, from the plaintiff. He was many a time asked, to pay the amount, in question, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to pay the amount, a suit for recovery alongwith interest, was filed. 3. The defendant/appellant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was admitted that the defendant used to sell his food-grains, through the commission agency of the plaintiff/respondent. It was stated that the defendant stopped selling his food grains, through the commission agency of the plaintiff, and with a view to put pressure upon him,the entries, in the account books, were fabricated, on the basis whereof, a suit for recovery, was filed. It was denied that any amount, referred to above, was obtained, as advance, by the defendant, from the plaintiff. It was also denied that the defendant signed entries, in the books of account. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 3,65,832/-? OPP RSA No. 1544 of 2008 3 (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if any, at what rate? OPP (iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based on false and frivolous facts and its effect? OPD (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/respondent, which was accepted by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgement and decree dated 23.01.2008. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The following substantial question of law, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- Whether the first Appellate Court, recorded perverse findings, that the plaintiff/respondent, was entitled to the recovery of the amount, with interest, on the basis of uncorroborated entries, in the account books, and, as such, its judgement and decree, are illegal? 10. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that the trial Court, was right, in dismissing the suit, on the ground, that merely on the basis of the uncorroborated entries, in the account books of the plaintiff/respondent, decree could not be passed. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, was wrong, in passing the decree, on the basis of uncorroborated entries, in the account books. He further submitted that Sadhu Singh, never obtained any advance, from the plaintiff/respondent, nor RSA No. 1544 of 2008 4 did he sign the entries, in the account books. He further submitted that the entries, were forged and fabricated by the plaintiff/respondent. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. He further submitted that the entries, contained in the books of account of the plaintiff/respondent, which were maintained, in the regular course of business, were duly corroborated, through other evidence. He further submitted that, as such, it could not be said, that the decree, was passed by the first Appellate Court, only on the basis of uncorroborated entries, in the account books. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law that, in the Regular Second Appeal, this Court, cannot interfere into the findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, even if, the same may be grossly incorrect. This Court, in the Regular Second Appeal, can only decide the substantial question of law, if any, arises. The scope in the Regular Second Appeal, is, thus, very limited. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72. In the instant case, the judgement and decree, were not passed by the first Appellate Court, merely on the basis of uncorroborated entries, in the books of account. Janak Raj, PW3, brought the original books of account, for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and proved the copies thereof, exhibits P4 and P5. It was stated by him that these account books, were being maintained by the RSA No. 1544 of 2008 5 plaintiff/respondent concern, in the regular course of business. Lakhmi Chand, plaintiff/respondent, when appeared, as PW2, also corroborated the relevant entries, in the account books. Dr. Atul K. Singla, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, PW4, examined two questioned signatures of Sadhu Singh, defendant/appellant, marked as Q1, against the entry, in the account books, for Rs. 2,00,000/-, dated 18.06.1999, and Q2, against the entry, in the account books, for Rs. 20,000/-, dated 19.06.1999, and compared the same with his specimen signatures mark S1, on Vakalatnama dated 03.08.2002, in favour of Sardool Singh, Advocate, and S2 and S3, on written statement dated 19.10.2002, and tendered the opinion, that signatures Q1 and Q2, were appended by the same person, who appended the standard signatures S1 to S3, and submitted his report P8. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the first Appellate Court, rightly held, that the entries, in the account books, stood duly corroborated. No doubt, Sadhu Singh, defendant/appellant, appeared as DW1, and also examined Baga Singh, Clerk, M.C., Cheeka, as DW2. Sadhu Singh, deposed, with regard to the sale of food grains to the plaintiff/respondent, from time to time, and similar statement, was made by Baga Singh, Clerk, M.C., Cheeka, DW2. Sadhu Singh, denied that he borrowed any amount, and appended his signatures, against the entries, in the account books. However, the first Appellate Court, rightly discarded his evidence, for valid reasons. No evidence, with regard to the fabrication of these entries, and playing of fraud upon him, was produced by the defendant/appellant. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, placed reliance on Chandradhar Goswami and others Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 (SC), 1058, to contend that mere entries, in the books of account, were not sufficient to charge a person with liability, except where the person concerned accepted correctness of the RSA No. 1544 of 2008 6 same. There is, no dispute, with regard to the proposition of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case. However, in the instant case, as stated above, the entries, contained, in the books of account of the plaintiff/respondent concern, which were maintained, in the regular course of business, were duly corroborated, through the ocular and expert evidence, produced by it. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, from Chandradhar Goswami and others' case (supra), as the facts thereof, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. The first Appellate Court, was, thus, right in decreeing the suit, on the basis of the entries contained, in the books of account, maintained in the regular course of business, which were duly corroborated, through the other ocular and expert evidence. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, cannot be said to be either perverse, or illegal, in any manner. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are liable to be upheld. Substantial question of law, depicted above, is answered, against the defendant/appellant. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 27.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE