RSA No. 2406 of 2008(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2406 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: March 14,2011 M/s A. M. Traders and others ..Appellants Versus M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Having failed in both the courts below, the defendants are in second appeal. The respondent-plaintiff, a company, filed suit against the defendant/appellants alleging that the plaintiff had appointed defendant No.1, a partnership firm, of which defendant Nos.2 and 3 are partners, as Consignment Selling Agent/dealer for plaintiff’s products in western Uttar Pradesh vide agreement dated 25.12.1995. Defendants failed to furnish F and C Forms to the plaintiff (required for taxation purpose) and also failed to pay the balance suit amount of ` 2,51,775.88. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of the said amount and also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply the requisite F and C Forms. Defendants admitted that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant No.2 is its partner. It was denied that defendant No.3 is also partner of defendant No.1. It was alleged that one Meena Jain is second partner of the firm. It was admitted that plaintiff appointed defendant No.1 as its Consignment Selling Agent for its products in western Uttar Pradesh vide agreement dated RSA No. 2406 of 2008(O&M) 2 25.12.1995. However, the defendants alleged that payment realized by them from the purchaser parties was paid to the plaintiff and requisite F and C forms were also supplied and nothing is due from the defendant-appellants. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2006 decreed plaintiff’s suit for recovery of suit amount with pendenta lite and future interest. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge,( Ad hoc) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiff has examined its General Manager (Commercial), Madan Lal, PW1, who brought account books of the plaintiff and other documents and broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version and proved various documents. On the other hand, defendant No.2 Ajay Jain appeared as DW1 and broadly stated according to the defendants' version. Plaintiff’s case is supported by documentary evidence. On the other hand, there is only bald, oral and self serving statement of defendant No.2 in support of the case of the defendants. The said statement of defendant No.2 is not sufficient to rebut the cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. Moreover, defendant No.2 admitted that defendant No.1-partnership firm is maintaining account books. However, defendant No.2 did not bring account books of defendant No.1-firm. Consequently, the courts below have rightly drawn adverse presumption against the defendants. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is supported by the evidence on record and the reasons recorded by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that suit on behalf of the plaintiff-company was filed through its attorney-S.C. Aggarwal, but S.C. Aggarwal has not stepped into the witness box and therefore, adverse RSA No. 2406 of 2008(O&M) 3 presumption should have been raised against the plaintiff. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidhyadhar Versus Mankikrao and another -1999(2) Civil Court Cases-91(S.C.). I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit in it. The plaintiff is a company and it has to be represented by some individual person. The suit was of course filed through the plaintiff’s attorney S.C. Aggarwal, but only the person conversant with the facts of the case has to be examined as witness. Madan Lal, PW1, who stepped into the witness box on behalf of the plaintiff, was General Manager (Commercial) and he was, therefore, conversant with the facts of the case. He also brought account books of the plaintiff and other necessary documents. Consequently, no question of drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff on account of non-appearance of S.C. Aggarwal in the witness box arises in the instant case. The judgment in the case of Vidhyadhar (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the appellants/defendants were not given proper opportunity to lead their evidence. The contention is completely misconceived, frivolous and meritless because the defendants' counsel himself closed the evidence of the defendants. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants/appellants to contend that proper opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to them. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and cannot take advantage of weakness in defendants' case. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Versus M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills-1998(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 292. The contention is again misconceived and merit less. There is no dispute with the legal proposition that plaintiff has to prove its own case. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff has led sufficient reliable evidence to prove its case. On the other hand, adverse presumption has been drawn against RSA No. 2406 of 2008(O&M) 4 the defendants for withholding their account books. The consequence of this presumption is that account books if produced would have depicted that suit amount is due from the defendants to the plaintiff. On the other hand, in case of PUDA (supra), the document which was the basis of the suit of the plaintiff had not been produced nor its terms and conditions were proved. In this view of the matter, dismissal of the suit was upheld in that case. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove its case, whereas defendants have withheld their account books without any explanation whatsoever. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in judgments of the Courts below warranting interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. March 14,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE