RSA No.4883 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4883 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22 , 2009 Harvinder Singh ...........Appellant Versus M/s Jagdish Lal and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-M/s Jagdish Lal Rajinder Paul, Commission Agents,Samana filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,787/- (Rs.1,11,947/-as principal amount and Rs.58,840/- as interest). The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Samana vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was partly accepted by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs,1,11,947 as principal amount with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.11.1999 till the date of decision of the suit and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,11,947/- from the date of decision of the suit till its realization against defendant No.2 only, by the learned District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 11.5..2009. Hence, the present RSA No.4883 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appeal by the defendant No.2. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “ 2. The brief facts of the case that M/s Jagdish Lal Rajinder Paul, Commission Agents through Jagdish Lal plaintiff has filed the suit against Gurbachan Singh and Harvinder Singh defendants for recovery of Rs.1,70,787.92 paise i.e. Rs.1,11,947/- as principal amount and Rs.58,840.92 paise on account of interest. The main case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm. Gurbachana Singh, defendant No.1 started dealing with the plaintiff firm in the year 1998-99 and took an amount of Rs.1000/- as advance on 28.9.98 which is duly entered in the cash book and the entry was signed by defendant No.1. He also borrowed Rs.830/- later on and total amount of Rs.1830/- was paid by defendant No.1 on 4.12.98. Again defendant No.1 sold crops at the shop of the plaintiff in the year 1999-2000 and amounts of Rs.8208.30. Rs.50,905.68. Rs.47,642.42 and Rs.18,892.50 were credited in the khata of defendant No.1 and some of the amount regarding sale of crop was taken in cash by defendant No.1. There is also averment that the son of defendant No.1 and his agent defendant No.2 Harvinder Singh also took amounts on 8.4.999, 12.4.999, 26.4.99, 25.9.99, 19.10.99, 27.10.99 and 3.11.99 and all these amounts were duly entered in the khata of defendant No.1 and the entries are signed by defendant No.2 . The entry regarding amount of Rs.2,12,742/-, which was received by defendant No.2 on 3.11.1999 is duly RSA No.4883 of 2009 (O&M) 3 signed by defendant No.2 after adjusting the amount in the khata of defendant No.1. Now total amount remains Rs.1,11,947/- payable by both the defendants. 3. Both the defendants filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 denied that he borrowed amount of Rs.1830/- or regarding paying back this amount. Similarly, he stated that he sold the crops but he received the amount in cash and no amount was deposited in the khata of defendant No.1. These entries are false. He also stated that he never authorized defendant No.2 as his agent to get any amount from the plaintiff on his behalf nor he gave such consent to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 also denied regarding borrowing of amount. He also stated that he has not received any amount on behalf of defendant No.1. He is residing separately. All other remaining averments are also mainly denied. 4. Replications have also been filed by the plaintiff in which the plaintiff controverted the averments made in the written statements and reiterated those made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered firm and Jagdish Lal is one of its partner?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest, as prayed for from the defendants?OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD RSA No.4883 of 2009 (O&M) 4 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD 6.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and is not having any money lending licence?If so, its effect?OPD 8.Whether the suit is barred under provision of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act?OPD 9. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of entries in the accounts book. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, in fact, the entries in question had not been duly proved. The original register was not produced before the Courts below. The person who had recorded entries had not been produced in the Court. However, there is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact, the argument raised before the District Judge was that mere entries in accounts books were not sufficient to charge any person with liability. Before the District Judge, no such objection was taken that the original of the accounts books had not been produced. The relevant entries were duly proved during the trial and were duly established. At that time, no objection was raised regarding the RSA No.4883 of 2009 (O&M) 5 exhibition of the relevant entries. The fact that the person who had recorded the entries had not been examined also looses its significance in the facts of the present case. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and proved the relevant entries. Entries were made at the instance of the plaintiff in the accounts book and are duly signed by the appellant. The handwriting expert examined by the plaintiff has corroborated the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the entries were duly signed by the appellant. The appellant had failed to rebut his signatures on the relevant entries in the accounts books. The accounts books had been maintained in regular course of business by the plaintiff. The conduct of the appellant is that he had even denied his signatures on the vakalatnama executed by him in favour of his counsel. Keeping in view the factual matrix of this case, no ground for interference is made out. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 22, 2009 arya