RSA No. 4256 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4256 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.03.2011. Gurmej Singh .......Appellant Vs. M/s Babu Ram Nathi @ Nathi Ram ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 1,34,579/- basing its claim on Bahi entries. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff firm was dealing in the business of commission agency. Defendant was the customer of the plaintiff firm and had received an amount of ` 81,900/- from the plaintiff firm on different dates. Defendant, after settlement of accounts, had acknowledged the balance amount and had affixed his signatures on the Bahi entry dated 28.11.1998. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he had no dealing with the plaintiff firm after November 1997. Defendant had never sold his produce to the plaintiff nor had received any money from the plaintiff firm. It was denied that RSA No. 4256 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the defendant had received ` 9,000/- on 18.6.1998 or ` 11,200/- on 28.11.1998. The said entries were not signed by the defendant. The defendant also denied the factum of settlement of accounts on 28.11.1998. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, if so to what rate? OPP 2. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.2009, trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 1,34,579/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in an appeal filed by the defendant, by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff, in order to prove its case, examined Som Parkash Munim as PW-1, who proved the bahi entries in RSA No. 4256 of 2010 (O&M) -3- question. Krishan Chand, partner of the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW-2 and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. PW-3 Shamsher Singh Malik, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert gave his opinion that the disputed signatures of the defendant on the bahi entries dated 28.11.1998, 1.6.1998, and 21.1.1998 matched with his standard signatures. Defendant, on the other hand, failed to establish that the bahi entries in question were not signed by him. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the defendant owed ` 81,900/- to the plaintiff firm. The said finding of fact calls for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 09, 2011 Gurpreet