IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 195 of 1999. Reserved on:13.10.2009. Decided on: 15.10.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Arvinder Singh & another … Appellants. Versus Mohan Meakins Ltd. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants and for : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate vice Proforma respondent No.2. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr.Adv. For Respondent No.1. : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 16-NS/13 of 1992. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) had instituted a suit against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake) for recovery of Rs. 14,930/-. The plaintiff is a registered company with its Head Office at Solan. The predecessor-in-interest of defendants-Shri Trilochan Singh was running L-2 retail Vend in Dharampur in the year 1984-85. He had been obtaining supplies for Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 manufactured by the plaintiff-Company on credit from 4.4.1984 to 15.12.1984. He took on 15.12.1984 on credit the goods valuing Rs. 10,570.01 and issued a cheque No. 0006817 on the same day. The cheque was not honoured. The defendants contested the suit. It is denied by them that Shri Trilochan Singh was taking supplies on credit. Issuance of cheque by Shri Trilochan Singh was denied. However, they have admitted that they are the legal heirs of deceased Shri Trilochan Singh. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan dismissed the suit on 13.7.1992. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1992. The learned District Judge, Solan allowed the appeal on 25.2.1999. This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1999. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated because of admission and consideration of inadmissible evidence and for want production of the material evidence?” Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan is not maintainable in the eyes of law. He has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. According to him, the learned District Judge, Solan has not properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 3 The plaintiff has examined three witnesses, namely; Shri H.N. Handa, Shri B.S. Dutta and Shri Rakesh Kumar. The liquor was supplied to Shri Trilochan Singh on the basis of excise pass. The transaction was entered in the ledger vide Annexure PW-2/A. The plaintiff had been maintaining these accounts in ordinary course of business and the same were regularly maintained. These entries are admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The liquor was supplied vide Ext. PW-2/B. The consignment was received by the Driver of the Vendee, Shri Prabhu Dayal. Cheque Ext. PA was issued by Shri Trilochan Singh. It was not honoured. Mr. Rakesh Kumar has identified the signatures of Shri Trilochan Singh on the cheque. The plaintiff has proved that the liquor was supplied to late Shri Trilochan Singh and the entries were made to this effect in the ledger. These were supplied by way of invoice. The learned First Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. October 15, 2009. (cr)