IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3195 of 2005 Date of Decision: 11.3.2010 Sudhir Viz. ....... Appellant through Shri Anil Kshetrapal, Advocate. Versus Udham Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Shri Rajesh Bansal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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. This order disposing of the instant Regular Second Appeal be read in continuation of order dated 23.2.2010 and the reasoning therein be read as a part of the reasoning for disposal of the appeal. The first appellate Court has clearly gone wrong in adopting a course of reasoning to say that it is unbelievable that a person would borrow with fractional rupee, which reasoning can, at best, be termed to be unsustainable because of the nature of transactions inter se between the appellant and the respondents. The appellant is a commission agent and it is not unusual for the transactions in question to find their way which are more or less in the nature of minor R.S.A. No. 3195 of 2005 -2- .... adjustments being made in the running account. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored. The appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. March 11,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge