Regular Second Appeal No. 3532 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3532 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.10.2008 Khem Chand and Company & Others …Appellants Versus M/s Kishan Lal Ramesh Chand & Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. M/s Krishan Lal Ramesh Chand, which is a sole proprietorship firm, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,120.98 ps. against M/s Khem Chand & Company and others, appellants-defendants. Briefly stated, it was pleaded ;that the appellants-defendants had purchased wheat and barley amounting to Rs.3,65,160.44 ps. during the period 28.4.1988 to 26.5.1988. It was stated that the defendants were required to submit ST-15 Forms in both A and C parts. These forms were presented before the Assessing Authority of Sales Tax qua the transaction between the parties. This Court need not to go into the minute details of the facts which have been given in para 2 of the trial Court judgment but suffice it to say that the claim was made by the plaintiffs that one ST-15 form was forged and, therefore, the amount of Rs.6,120.98 ps. is to be recovered from the defendants. Regular Second Appeal No. 3532 of 2007 2 A written statement was filed to the suit. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel were also taken and on merits, all the averments made in the plaint were denied by the appellants-defendants. After the pleadings of the parties had concluded, following issues have been framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.6,120.98 ps. with costs and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till payment? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD 6. Relief. To fortify the pleadings, five witnesses were examined including the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW.5. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding that a particular ST form was forged and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, appearing for the appellants Regular Second Appeal No. 3532 of 2007 3 states that there are material contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, the evidence led by the appellants-defendants has not been properly appreciated by the two Courts below. Mr. Sinhal has been reminded by this Court that while arguing Regular Second Appeal, he has to formulate a substantial question of law to cause interference of this Court. He has stated that there is a misreading of evidence by the two Courts below as the evidence could not be reconciled. With the aid of learned counsel, I have gone through various portions of the judgments of two Courts below. I find that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and there is no infirmity and patent illegality or perversity in the judgments. Therefore, I have no reason to differ with the well founded reasoning given by the two Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that substantial question of law involved in this case is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the defendants. To me, in the facts of the case, this is not the substantial question of law which can be entertained by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 17, 2008 “DK”