R.S.A No. 78 of 2005(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 78 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision : March 05, 2010 Dev Raj, ...... Appellant (s) v. Santosh Kumar, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.1,26,652.50 on account of purchases of building material. The respondent relied upon a bill, Ex.P1, as per which the appellant purchased 200 bags of cement and 810 kgs of iron. He produced on record cash book, ledger book and the corresponding entries in the material supplied to the Income Tax Department. The case of the appellant was that in fact on that date, he had only purchased 20 bags of cement and R.S.A No. 78 of 2005(O&M) ::2:: that rest of the material was subsequently fraudulently added without his having purchased it. As per the appellant, the payment of those 20 bags of cement which he actually purchased had been made to the respondent. The Courts below, relying on the fact that the appellant had signed the bill, and keeping in view the statement of the appellant in his cross examination that he had signed the bill without checking it because he was in hurry, as well as by relying on the cash entries, ledger entries and the record of the Income Tax Department, and finding the same to be not implausible, decreed the suit. The appellant by way of evidence produced a diary stated to have been maintained by his wife whereby the entire record of purchases was maintained. However, the appellant did not produce the original bill, while the respondent produced a carbon copy of the bill along with the bill book. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (a) Whether a photocopy of a document which is though exhibited but objected to by the defendant can be read in evidence ? (b) Whether the findings which are based on misreading of evidence can be called in question in second appeal ? (c) Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in not scrutinizing and discussing the entire evidence on record specially when the same was statutory appeal and re- appraisal of the evidence was necessary ? (d) Whether due to withholding of material documents R.S.A No. 78 of 2005(O&M) ::3:: by the respondent the adverse inference is to be drawn against him ? (e) Whether the Court was bound to frame proper issues from the pleadings of the parties ? (f) Whether the findings which are contrary to record deserve to be set aside ? (g) Whether on the basis of documents, adverse inference by ignoring the documents can be raised ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. In view of the evidence extracted above, it cannot be said that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the carbon copy of the bill could not be produced without proving the loss of the original. In the very nature of things, original bill is always with the customers. As mentioned above, the appellant did not produce the same. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 05, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 78 of 2005(O&M) ::4::