Regular Second Appeal No. 3416 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3416 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision:16th February, 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Corporation, Village Dappar, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala through its partner Sh. Harvinder Singh and others .......Appellants/Defendants Versus Modula Engineers Private Limited ........Respondent/Plaintiff BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners. The defendants had been purchasing steel wires from the plaintiff from time to time. After receipt of bills and goods the defendants had been making payments from time to time in discharge of their liability. However, a sum of `1,25,131/- was due against the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement denied the contents in the plaint. It was averred that the payments of bills had been made by the defendants as and when they were found due. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- Regular Second Appeal No. 3416 of 2009(O&M) 2 “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of `3,23,903/- alongwith interest and cost, as prayed for?OPP (ii) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (iii) Relief.” Vide judgment and decee dated 17.08.2007, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009 and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that that instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants had been purchasing steel wires from it from time to time. However, payment qua bills Ex: P-3 to P-7 had not been made by the defendants. Receipts qua articles sent by the plaintiff to defendants were proved as Ex: P-9 to P-11. The plaintiff in order to prove its case had produced the carbon copies of the bills in question. The plaintiff examined witness PW-1 to prove the bills Ex:P-3 to P-7. The said witnesses produed the carbon copies during trial. The plaintiff could only produce the carbon copies of the bills as the original bills must have been given to the defendants. The carbon copies of the bills were duly shown by PW-1 Hari Chand Mohan at the time of his cross Regular Second Appeal No. 3416 of 2009(O&M) 3 examination. In these circumstances the first appellate court rightly held that the bills in question had been duly proved by the plaintiff. The onus was on the defendants to establish that the payments had been made qua the said bills. It also came on record that the defendants had issued a cheque qua the outstanding amount but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be allowed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. [SABINA] JUDGE 16th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik