RSA No. 4352 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4352 of 2006 Date of Decision: 22.7.2009 M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Co. ......Appellant Versus M/s M.B. Modern Rice Mills and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.55,950/- i.e. Rs.48,341.92p as principal and Rs.7608.08p as interest upto 15.9.1996, was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants owed the aforesaid amount on account of paddy supplied to the defendants as the defendants maintained a mutual, current and open account with the plaintiff- firm. The defendants asserted that there was a settlement and a sum of Rs.42,000/- was arrived at as the amount due. Such amount was paid to the plaintiff vide writing dated 29.7.1996. The said writing has been made basis to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the said writing Exhibit D.1 is a RSA No. 4352 of 2006 (2) forged document. The plaintiff examined Shri N.K. Jain, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, who has deposed that the signatures of Devi Dayal, partner of the plaintiff-firm on the receipt dated 29.7.1996 do not tally with the standard specimen signatures of Devi Dayal. On the other hand, the defendants examined Tek Chand, the marginal witness of the writing as DW2, who has deposed that sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in his presence. The defendants also examined another Handwriting and Fingerprints expert, Yash Pal Chand Jain, who has proved that the writing dated 29.7.1996 bears the signatures of Devi Dayal. Though the reports of both the experts are contrary to each other, yet it was found by the learned trial Court that if the signatures of the plaintiff over the plaint are compared with the signatures on Exhibit D.1, then even with the naked eye it would be clear that the signatures of Devi Dayal over Exhibit D.1 tally with his signatures on the plaint. There is natural variation between the two signatures but the same is on account of the fact that no person can absolutely sign identical at the same time. Such finding is affirmed in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Tek Chand DW2 is an interested witness as he is the person, who is selling his agricultural produce to defendants and that he has not categorically deposed that a sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and that his statement is that Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/- were paid to the plaintiff. In fact, the challenge in the second appeal is to the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Mere fact that DW2 is a person, who is selling his agricultural RSA No. 4352 of 2006 (3) produce to the defendants is not a ground to reject his testimony. The statement that Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/- were paid to the plaintiff is sufficient indication of the fact that the amount was, in fact, paid to the plaintiff. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 22-07-2009 ds