RSA No.394 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.394 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2010 Kewal Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Surinder Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.11506-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.394 of 2009 This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.2,25,128/- (Rs.1,98,700 principal amount + Rs.26,428 interest) was decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the respondent filed a suit for recovery against the appellant on the basis of entries in the account books alleging that the appellant had dealings with the plaintiff- respondent and he used to sell his agricultural produce through him. It was further alleged that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,99,700/- in cash from the plaintiff-respondent. The entries were made by the plaintiff- respondent in cash book as well as in the ledger duly maintained in the ordinary course of business and these entries were also signed by the appellant in token of its correctness. It was further alleged that the defendant returned Rs.1,000/- regarding which entry was also made in the RSA No.394 of 2009 (O&M) 2 account books. However, he failed to pay the remaining amount outstanding against him. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, the appellant denied that he ever borrowed any amount from the plaintiff-respondent or signed the account books. It was averred that the entries in the account books of the plaintiff-respondent were forged and fabricated. However, it was admitted that the appellant used to sell his agricultural produce through the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant also raised a counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,25,054/- from the plaintiff on account of sale of paddy etc. Dismissal of the suit and grant of decree of the counter claim was prayed. The plaintiff filed replication thereby denying the averments made in the written statement. The plaintiff also filed reply to the counter claim denying the averments of the appellant and dismissal of the counter claim was prayed and it was further prayed that his suit be decreed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,98,700/- in cash from the plaintiff firm? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,25,128/-? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit by preparing forged and fabricated entries? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has dragged the defendant into unnecessary litigation? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,25,054/- on account of sale of paddy of 198 RSA No.394 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Qtls 25 kgs on 29.9.2000 and 3.10.2000 as counter claim? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.2005, the suit of the plaintiff as well as counter claim filed by the defendant-appellant was decreed. The defendant-appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.2,11,914/- was decreed. However, the plaintiff-respondent did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby counter claim of the defendant-appellant was decreed. Before the Lower Appellate Court, the defendant-appellant had argued that the plaintiff-respondent was not able to prove the entries in the account books by leading any evidence to corroborate the same. However, the Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant found that despite taking a specific stand that the entries in the account books were forged and fabricated, no evidence was placed on record by the appellant and in fact issues No.3 and 5 on the aforesaid points were not pressed and thus, dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that the accounts maintained by him were not correct as the amount payable by him to the appellant which was decreed by way of counter claim were not reflected in the “Bahi” entries and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent should have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. RSA No.394 of 2009 (O&M) 4 As per the pleadings, the appellant used to sell his crop through the plaintiff-respondent and he had borrowed money and the aforesaid transactions were duly entered into the account books maintained by the plaintiff-firm, which were kept in ordinary course of business and were duly signed by the appellant in token of its correctness. Despite the fact that the appellant denied the aforesaid pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent yet no effort was made to place on record any evidence in support of his aforesaid pleas by the appellant. No evidence was adduced on record by the appellant to prove that his signatures in the account books were forged and fabricated. Moreover, no such argument was raised by the appellant before the Courts below as raised before this Court. Not only this, the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, available on record have taken one possible view and the same cannot be held to be a perverse finding simply because any other view was possible. Thus, no interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. October 4, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE