RSA No. 3484 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3484 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 26, 2011 M/s Bhagwati Trading Company through its proprietor Sh. Ashok Kumar ...... Appellant Versus Roop Singh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the respondents. **** L.N. Mittal, J (Oral) This is a second appeal by plaintiff-M/s Bhagwati Trading Company, Ambala having been non-suited by both the courts below. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents/defendants Roop Singh etc. for recovery of ` 1,77,000/- being due on the basis of entries in account books of the plaintiff duly signed by the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiff in the evidence produced entries of the ledger only and did not produce entries in other account books bearing signatures of the defendants vide which the amount had been advanced to the defendants. For this reason, the plaintiff was non-suited because entries in the ledger did not RSA No. 3484 of 2009 2 bear the signatures of the defendants whereas the relevant entries in cash book etc. bearing signatures of the defendants were not produced in evidence. In view of the aforesaid, plaintiff moved application for additional evidence in the lower Appellate Court which was, however, dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that entries in account books sought to be produced by additional evidence are essential for effective adjudication of the lis and the same were pleaded in the plaint, but could not be produced in evidence inadvertently and, therefore, additional evidence should have been allowed by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant accordingly prayed that plaintiff-appellant be allowed to lead proposed additional evidence and the suit be remanded to trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant. I have carefully considered the matter. Entries in the account books sought to be produced by additional evidence are essential for proper and effective adjudication of the lis. A reference to the said entries was made in the plaint itself, but for some reason or the other, the same were not produced in the evidence and the plaintiff has been non-suited on this ground. In this view of the matter, I find sufficient ground for permitting the plaintiff-appellant to produce the proposed additional evidence on payment of costs for effective adjudication of the case. For the reasons aforesaid, this second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees of both the lower Courts are set aside. The suit is remanded to trial Court. Plaintiff-appellant is permitted to produce proposed RSA No. 3484 of 2009 3 additional evidence as mentioned in application for additional evidence moved in first appeal subject to payment of ` 2,500/- as costs precedent. The trial Court shall decide the suit afresh in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. Files of the courts below be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 14.6.2011. (L.N. Mittal) Judge May 26, 2011 Anand