RSA No. 3808 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3808 of 2007 Date of decision: December 11,2008 Harish Kumar son of Bant Singh ..Appellant. Versus M/s Bant Ram Amar Nath ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 36113-50 along with interest at the rate of 1 % per month from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 80000/- by alleging that the said amount is recoverable from the appellant/defendant on account of business dealings between them and further claimed interest at the rate of 18 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant denied his inability to pay the suit amount and further pleaded that suit of plaintiff is time barred and therefore, is not entitled to the suit amount. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 36113.50 till the filing of the suit along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. The trial Court also held that since the last payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff on 18.4.1994, the suit which was filed on 12.4.1994 is within limitation. Issue No. 3 was not pressed by the defendants and resultantly the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as stated above. RSA No. 3808 of 2007 2 The appeal filed by the defendants challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide his judgment and decree dated 22.5.2007. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the present appeal in this court challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the account books of the plaintiff-respondents are not proved to have been regularly maintained as required under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the evidence of “Bahi” entries are not admissible in evidence and therefore, the suit of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. It was further argued by him that the appellant has proved on record that cheque dated 18.4.1994 was not issued at the instance of appellant, so the limitation cannot be extended on the basis of said alleged cheque because limitation can only be extended when there is written acknowledgment or payment has been made by the appellant-defendant himself or by a person duly authorized by him to make such payment.Learned counsel has also argued that in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC, future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum cannot be granted and has prayed that judgment and decrees of the courts below be set aside and suit of the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. However, I find no force in his contentions. From the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that the appellant has not taken any objection in the written statement that the plaintiff-respondent has not maintained his accounts regularly nor this point has been raised by the appellants during arguments before the courts below. Moreover, learned counsel was unable to point out from the record of the case any irregularity in the account maintained by the plaintiff-respondent as proved on the record. The second contention of the counsel for the appellant that the suit is beyond limitation is also liable to be rejected. Admittedly, the cheque in question belonged to the appellant and the same has been honoured by the RSA No. 3808 of 2007 3 banker of the appellant. The appellant has failed to prove the fact that how this cheque has been issued by any unauthorized person as alleged by him. The cheque is signed by Shri Barjeshwar Kumar as Manager . The said person had also issued cheque dated 28.1.1993 for a sum of Rs. 10000/- and it was accounted for in the account of the respondent firm on 29.1.1993. Thus when the bank could make the payment earlier, subsequent payment could not be said to be unauthorized. The courts below also found that from the bank documents of the appellant-firm, appellant had intimated the bank authorizing Barjeshwar Kumar to sign the payment/cheque. Therefore, the argument with regard to the limitation as raised by the appellant has no legs to stand. Even there is no force in the third argument raised by the appellant with regard to the grant of future interest at the rate of 12 % per annum by the courts below as undisputedly the parties were having business dealings and therefore, as per the proviso of Section 34 of CPC, the rate of future interest may exceed 6 % per annum. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 11, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE