R.S.A.No. 4109 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4109 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.2.2011 Mukhtiar Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Prem Lata .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery alleging that she was running a business of commission agency. Defendant No.1 had dealings with the plaintiff since the year 1996-97 and used to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 used to borrow amounts in advance from the plaintiff from time to time and had agreed to pay the same along with interest @ 2% per month. Defendant No.2 was son of defendant No.1. Both the defendants were joint in mess and farming. The amount in question was liable to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally. Defendants in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the defendants had cleared all their accounts on 30.5.1999 and their signatures/ thumb impressions had been obtained at the time of closing of account on R.S.A.No. 4109 of 2010 2 some blank vouchers etc. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant No.1 had a regular account with the plaintiff and he authorised defendant No.2 to borrow money in that account? OPP. 2. Whether a sum of ` 2,49,552.40 is found due and outstanding against the defendants, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed any material facts from the Court ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest over the balance amount? If so, at what rate and from which date ? OPP 7. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.2009. Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the outstanding amount of ` 2,49,552.40 was liable to be recovered from the defendants. R.S.A.No. 4109 of 2010 3 The defendants used to borrow money from the plaintiff from time to time but had failed to repay the said amount. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Vijay Kumar. The said witness tendered in evidence the original vouchers Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-86 and entries in the cash book, day book and copies of the khata. The said witness appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, his wife, as her attorney. Plaintiff also examined PW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert and PW-3 Amit Bholusaria, son of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 appeared in the witness box and denied the execution of the vouchers in question. Defendant No.1 admitted that he used to borrow money from the plaintiff but only to the tune of ` 1,000 or 1,200/-. Whenever he had borrowed money from the plaintiff his thumb impression was obtained in the red bahi. After leaving the shop of the plaintiff, he had never sold crop through any commission agent. However, the handwriting and finger print expert examined by the plaintiff, has given his report that the questioned thumb impressions of Mukhtiar Singh matched with his standard thumb impressions. The defendants, on the other hand, had, thus, failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. 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 February 16, 2011 anita