IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 177 of 1998. Reserved on: 28.08.2008. Decided on: 22.09.2008. Shri D.P. Singh. … … Appellant. Versus Shri Sunil Kumar. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla passed in Civil Appeal No.101-S/13 of 1995 on 17.1.1998. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.26,499.27 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Shimla. The plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Meera Paints and Hardwares at Totu and as per the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - averments contained in the plaint, the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake) purchased goods on credit from the plaintiff against bills as mentioned in the plaint, amounting to Rs.12,039.57 and at the time of purchase, it was one of the condition that the interest would be paid at the rate of 21% half yearly and in the event of the non-payment, it would be compounded. The defendant in his written statement denied the purchase of goods against bills as alleged. It is stated in the written statement that there is no privity of contract between the parties and the claim of the plaintiff was based on false and fabricated bills. The plaintiff had filed replication. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff on 19.5.1995. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 19.5.1995, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. The learned Additional District Judge, Shimla dismissed the appeal on 17.1.1998. This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, dated 17.1.1998 passed in Civil appeal No.101-S/13 of 1995. This regular second appeal was admitted on 1st July, 1998. However, it appears that inadvertently, the substantial questions of law could not be framed at the time of admission. During the course of hearing, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal and Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid have agreed that the only substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal is whether there is correct appreciation of evidence oral and documentary by both the Courts below. This regular second appeal will now be deemed to have been admitted on this substantial question of law alone. - 3 - Mr. Dushyant Dadwal had strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has strenuously argued that there is mis-reading and mis-appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence by both the courts below. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has produced the original bills Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/J. He has also proved on record the notice Ex.PW-1/A and postal receipt Ex.PW-1/B. He has also produced the original bill books pertaining to the bills Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/J on his further examination. PW-2 is Shri Tara Dutt. He was the incharge of site of the defendant in the year 1984-86. It has come in his statement that he had been purchasing the goods from the plaintiff on the directions of defendant on credit basis and he used to sign the bills. He has admitted his signatures on the bills mark A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7, exhibited as PW- 1/F to Ex.PW-1/J. PW-3 Shri Bidhi Chand, L.D.C., Gerrision Engineers had proved on record Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/G pertaining to the allotment of work to defendant. The manner in which the suggestion has been given by the defendant in cross-examination to PW-1 and PW-2 belies his stand of having no transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the goods. The defendant has not produced his brother, R.P. Singh. His signatures are on the bills Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/E as stated by the plaintiff and PW-2. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal has argued that bills Ex.PW- 1/C to Ex.PW-1/J were not admissible in evidence as the plaintiff had failed to produce the original bills at the time of presentation of the plaint. - 4 - The defendant has not taken such objection at the time when bills Ex.PW- 1/C to Ex.PW-1/J were proved on the basis of original bills books produced by the plaintiff. Since he has not objected at the initial stage, he is not entitled to raise the objection at this stage. The plaintiff has given correct dates of the bills in his evidence. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on facts. The learned courts below have correctly appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence. There is no substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. September 22, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.