R.S.A.No. 422 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 422 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.1.2011 Shamsher Singh ......Appellant Versus M/s Durga Agency Commission Agent and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate and Ms.Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff-firm was running the business of commission agents. The defendants had opened an account with the plaintiff-firm on 21.2.2006 and sold their crops through the plaintiff-firm. On the same day, defendant No.2 borrowed ` 3,56,800/- from the plaintiff-firm on his own behalf R.S.A.No. 422 of 2011 (O&M) 2 and on behalf of defendant No.1 and signed bahi khata of the plaintiff-firm. Thereafter, defendants never sold their crops through the plaintiff-firm. It was also claimed that defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit property. Defendants in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the entry dated 21.2.2006 did not bear the signatures of defendant No.2. The said entry was a fabricated one. In the year 1992, Charan Singh had taken ` 65,000/- from answering defendant towards amanat and had not returned the same so far. The answering defendant had not opened any account with the plaintiff-firm nor had borrowed the amount in question. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ` 3,59,976/- alongwith interest of ` 2,676? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 4.Whether the suit is not filed by competent persons? OPP 5. Relief. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010. Aggrieved by the same, R.S.A.No. 422 of 2011 (O&M) 3 defendants preferred an appeal. District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2010 partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and held that the suit was liable to be decreed only qua defendant No.2 Shamsher Singh and dismissed the suit qua defendant No.1 Mohinder Singh. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery on the basis of entry Ex.P-1. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined PW-7 Sukhpal Singh, Accountant, who was maintaining the account books of the firm. The said witness had scribed the entry in question. He deposed that after borrowing the amount in question, defendant No.2 had signed the account book on his own behalf and on behalf of defendant No.1. The defendants have simply denied the entry Ex.P- 1 and have claimed that the same was not signed by the appellant. However, the appellant, in his cross-examination, had deposed that his signatures had been obtained forcibly in the bahi accounts of the firm. From this a presumption can be drawn that the bahi entry in question bears the signatures of the appellant. Moreover, the fact that it was signed by the appellant had duly been proved by the Accountant, who had scribed the entry in question. Ex.D-1, receipt qua acceptance of ` 65,000/- by the plaintiff, was rightly discarded by R.S.A.No. 422 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the Courts below as the defendants had not taken any action qua recovery of the said amount. The said receipt was executed in the year 1992, whereas, notice Ex.D-2 was issued in the year 2008 after a gap of sixteen years. Thus, the Courts below rightly held that the entry Ex.P-1 had been duly proved to be executed by the appellant. The appellant had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to execution of Ex.P-1. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. 1. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 25, 2011 anita