Regular Second Appeal No. 826 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 826 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.1.2009 *** Pritpal Singh .. Appellant VS. Babu Ram .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay of 85 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. After having lost concurrently before two Courts below in a suit for recovery, the defendant-appellant has preferred the instant regular appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book carefully. It emerges out from the records that both the Courts below while placing implicit reliance upon the entries Ex.P2 to Ex.P19 made in the Bahi Khata Ex.P1, which were found to be produced before the Income Tax as well as Sales Tax Authorities by the plaintiff firm in due course of its business and duly proved by the plaintiff and his witness and upon which there found signatures of the defendant-appellant, which although were denied by him, but failed to substantiate the same by leading any cogent evidence to prove that the same was forged and fabricated one, have concurrently held that the entries in Bahi Ex.P1 carry presumption of truth in it and the defendant-appellant is liable to make the payment to the defendant. Although the suit was for recovery of Rs.3,80,000/- i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 826 of 2008 2 Rs.2,22,200/- as principal amount (as proved vide entries Ex.P2 to Ex.P19) and Rs.1,57,800 towards interest accrued thereupon, but the learned trial Court inadvertently decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.1,57,800/-, without mentioning the principal amount, which mistake has been rectified by the learned first appellate Court below while dealing with the cross-objections filed by the respondent and has rightly decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.2,22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. date of advancement of loans till realization of decretal sum. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 22,2009 Jiten