RSA No.1189 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1189 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Harjinder Singh and another ......Appellants Versus M/sTarsem Chand Madan Lal .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jagmeet Singh,Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-firm-M/s Tarsem Chand Madan Lal had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the firm was doing the business of Commission Agents. Defendants were having dealing with the plaintiff-firm. Defendant No.1 had taken an advance of ` 2,00,000/- in his own name and an advance of `1,00,000/- in the name of defendant No.2. Defendants had, however, failed to settle the accounts. The relevant entries in the accounts of the firm were duly signed by defendant no.1. FIR No. 358 under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code was got registered RSA No.1189 of 2010 (O&M) 2 against the defendants. Defendants,in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that defendant No.2 had not signed any entry qua the advancement of loan nor had authorized defendant No.1 to take loan on his behalf. Plaintiff-firm had threatened the defendants that they would prepare false documents against them and involve them in a criminal case. Defendants had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the the plaintiff-firm. Defendants had filed a complaint under Sections 363, 364, 324, 506 against Madan Lal and others as defendant no. 1 had been kidnapped from his house and had been taken to some unknown place. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 10.5.2002 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 21.6.2002 from the plaintiff as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiffs were estopped at their own act and conduct?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 (J) of CPC?If so, its effect?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true facts from the Court?if so, its effect?OPD RSA No.1189 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs,4,37,950/- along with interest from the defendants?OPP 7.Relief” The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2006. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendants by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff-firm had filed a suit for recovery basing reliance on entries made in the accounts books. The relevant entries in the account books were duly proved by Lachman Dass who was working as a Munim with the plaintiff firm. PW5 Parduman Singh proved the transaction which had taken place on 21.6.2002 qua the amount of ` 1,00,000/- received by defendant No.1 on behalf of defendant No.2 in his presence. The balance sheets maintained by the plainfiff, summoned by the defendants, also revealed that the entries qua outstanding amount had been made against the defendants. Defendants, on the other hand, had failed to establish their pleas that the entries in the accounts book maintained by the plaintiff firm were a result of fraud. Defendants also failed to prove on record the outcome of the criminal complaint filed by them against Madan Lal and others. The handwriting and fingerprint expert was examined by the plaintiff. The expert opined that the questioned signatures tallied with standard signatures of defendant No.1. In these circumstances, the RSA No.1189 of 2010 (O&M) 4 suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE May 17, 2011 arya