IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.1.2010 M/S Sharman Oil & General Mills and others. ....... Appellants. Versus M/S B.M.Agro Industries (P) Limited and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for Shri Vishal Garg, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.12542-C of 2009 The application is accepted and delay of 63 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. C.M.Nos.12543-C & 12544-C of 2009 and R.S.A.No.4117 of 2009 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 26.7.2008 and 11.2.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur (described hereinafter as `the R.S.A. No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ..... first appellate Court') vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was decreed and the appeal of the defendants-appellants & Smt.Lajwanti Jain, predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents was dismissed. Respondent no.1 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,20,622.40 against the appellants and Smt.Lajwanti Jain and the same was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the appellants and Smt.Lajwanti Jain was dismissed by the first appellate Court which has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgments are erroneous and are liable to be set aside as the bills on the basis of which the claim of respondent no.1 was based, were not proved and the suit was beyond limitation. I have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that none of the appellants had appeared in the witness box to prove the falsity of the bills nor the confirmation of the disputed and outstanding amount made by Mohinder Kumar, who was their employee, was disproved. The appellants, in their written statement, had disputed the amounts claimed by respondent no.1 and also disputed the alleged confirmation said to have been made by Mohinder Kumar. It was, therefore, incumbent upon them to have appeared in the witness box to support their plea which they had taken and also to submit themselves for R.S.A. No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ..... cross-examination. Having not done so, the claim of respondent no.1 based on the bills and the confirmation which were exhibited as P24 and P25 and against which there was no counter evidence, the findings of the Courts below cannot be faulted with. The plea that the bills were never proved as their carbon copies were exhibited, also does not deserve to be accepted as respondent noi.1 had pleaded that the original bills had been given to the appellants and, therefore, the carbon copies which were retained, were being filed and exhibited. Thus, the appellants have failed to countert his plea and also failed to produce the original bills for which an adverse inference was rightly drawn against them by the Courts below. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. All the pending civil miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in view of the above. January 25,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge