:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.220 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.220 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.220 OF 2008 M/s. Hajwane Rice Mills & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Narendra Shet & Company Mahad. ...Respondents. Mr.Prasad S. Dani , adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 31st July, 2008. DATE: 31st July, 2008. DATE: 31st July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellants are the original defendants. Plaintiff/respondent filed Special Civil Suit No.3 of 1999 for recovery of Rs.1,06,204/-. According to the plaintiff, they are wholesale dealers of grocery and the defendants, who were running rice mill, used to purchase goods from time to time from the plaintiff on credit. Their account was maintained by the plaintiff. On 1-4-1996, an amount of Rs.78,454/- was due. It carried interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Thereafter, the defendant no.4 falsely issued notice. Then the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the amount inclusive of interest, which had accrued by that time. The defendants denied the claim. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim an amount of Rs.78,454/- with 8% interest thereon from the date of :2: the suit till the realisation of the amount. The said judgment was challenged by the defendants in Civil Appeal No.9 of 2003. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the defendants have filed the present second appeal. 3. It was noted by the appellate Court that as per the evidence of Shaukat Hajwane, who is the defendant no.2, the account was settled on 10-2-1998 and only an amount of Rs.13,664/- was found due from the defendants. This amount was repaid by two cheques of Rs.5,000/- and of Rs.8,664/- on 25-2-1998. However, he stated that subsequently, further amount of Rs.13,000/- was also paid in cash and only the balance amount of Rs.664/- was to be paid. This evidence is totally inconsistent. Both the Courts below disbelieved the evidence of Shaukat and relied upon the evidence led by the plaintiff and the account books maintained by him. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of the facts against the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellants, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. 4. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)