95 0 4 Reqular Second Aopeal Noe 427 of 2009 108M1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNOAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision March 20110 1 Reqular Second Appeal No 427 of 2009 lO8MI j Jagdish and another Appellants 0 0 VERSUS I C5 I MlseBhagwan Dass Ram Sarup and anotherIespondent Z 0 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL I 1 Whether Reporters of LocaI papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7 Z 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 00 Prese nt l MrSanjivGupta Advocate Wm Z for the appellantse 0m Mr Harkesh ManujaAdvocate for the respondents MOHINDER PAL J Mls BhagwanDass Ram Sarup hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffwfirmJ filed the instant suit against the defendantsopellants for recovery of Rs2142191 1e RSl372351 principal amount and Rs769841 as interest The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20 122004 Uma 2012.11.17 16: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 0 P4 2 Reqular Second Appeal Non 427 of 2009 tOSMle dismissedthe suit filed by the plaintiffwfirm However on appeal bythe plaintiffefirmthe judgmentand decree passed by the trial Court were set aside by the Iower appellate Court and suit of the plaintiffvfirm for recovery of Rs2 14219 from the was decreed along with costs and future 1 interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing 0 of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount The 0 I defendantseappellantsare now in second appeal challengingthe t5 judgmentand decree passedby the Iower appellateCourt I After hearing the Iearned counsel for the parties and Z perusingthe impugnedjudgment passed by the iower appellate r Court I do not find any ground which may warrant interference I therein so far as merits of the case are concerned It could not be pointed out by the Iearned counsel for the defendants Z appellants that such findings recorded by the Iower appellate m Court are based on misreadingof evidence or that rnaterial mm Z evidence has not been taken into consideration 0m No l Jagdish IS the father of No2 Rohtash The plaintiffeOrm are in the business of commission agents DefendantappellantNo l Jagdish was introduced to the plaintifffirm by Ma ngat Ra m whO was also the customer of the plaintiffirm Thereafter the plaintif firm on the requestsof the defendantsappellantsadvanced money to them on various occasions All these payments were duly entered in the Rokar Bahi and Khata Bahi intoken of theircorrectness The entries used to be signed by the defendantsopellants At the r1 1 4 Uma 2012.11.17 16: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 97 1 0 8 Reciular Second Appeal Noa 427 of 2009 l08M1m time of filing of the instant suit Rs 1372351 were outstanding against the in the account of the plaintiffv firm The plaintiffirm produced on record the relevant entries of the account books which were rnaintained by it plaintiffmfirn in the regularcourse of business and were subjected to checkingby j sales tax and income tax authorities These entries are admissible 0 in evidence The genuineness of these entries cannot be 0 1 doubted Their authenticityis vouchsafed from hefact that these I C5 were signed by the defendantsappeliantsIll token of receipt of I advance amounts No doubt in this case both the partieshad Z examined handwritingexperts whO supportedthe cause of their r pay masters but in the presence of documentary evidence I contained in the account books ofthe plaintlfirm maintained Ill the regularcourse of business it ca nnot be doubted that the Z had been taking Ioans from the plaintiffirm m and a sum of RSl372351 was payable by the defendants 7 Z appellantsto the plaintifffirm at the time of the filing of the instant 0 suit No fault therefore can be found with the findings recorded by the Iower appellateCourt with regard to the fact that an amountof RsRsl372351e was recoverable by the plaintiff4irm from the defendantsappellants Under the circumstances I do not find any patent illegality or irregularityin the findings recorded by the Iower appellate Coutt on merits of the case which may give rise to any substantial question oflaw in the present appeal Resultantiy this appeal IS herebydismissed being without any merit However Uma 2012.11.17 16: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 98 1 0 1 4e Reqular Second APpeal Noe 427 of 2009 lOSMI0 the plaintifftlrm will be entitled to charge interest on the amount of Rs 1372351 at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 135 1996 ie the date from which the amount in question was due to the plaintiffirm from the defendantsopellants as per own case of the plaintiffirm as set out in the plaint till its actual 1 payment However there shali be no order as to costs 0 0 I C PALI C5 MarchoUI 2011 JUDGE ak I Z C Z m 17 Z Qn Uma 2012.11.17 16: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document