IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2008 SHRI. ABDUL GANI BAIG ... Appellant Versus SHRI. ATISH RAIKAR ... Respondent Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 6th February, 2009 P.C. Heard. The counsel for the appellant states that this appeal has been preferred against two concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.60,721/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff has supplied grocery items to the defendant and the defendant had failed to make the payment against the sale of those items. The plaintiff contended that he is a merchant and maintains books of accounts and it is found that a sum of Rs.60,721/- is due against the defendant. 3. The defendant though duly served did not appear in the Court to contest the suit. 4. The learned Trial Court found that that the suit could not be decreed on the basis of the entries in the books of accounts which are placed before the Court. 5. After having gone through the judgment on record, it is apparent that besides the exact of the book of accounts, the plaintiff had not produced any other document. It is well settled principle of law that mere entries in books of accounts themselves are not sufficient to fasten the liability on a person. The plaintiff was bound to produce the invoice or delivery challans to corroborate the entries in the books of accounts. 6. I find that what is relied by the plaintiff are loose papers of accounts and the learned Courts have rightly not relied on the loose papers of accounts to fasten the liability on the defendant. I therefore, find that the Courts below have not erred in dismissing the suit. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed in limini. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.