RSA 2583 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2583 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 05, 2008 Shish Pal ...... Appellant Versus M/s Om Parkash Sat Parkash ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,55,000/- plus interest. Both the Courts have found that the respondent was able to prove the transaction between the parties on the basis of entries in the books of account which were corroborated by the statement of PW1 who stated that the entries had been made in his hand and have been duly signed by the appellant. It is to be noticed that the appellant did not produce any handwriting expert to prove his contention that in fact the signatures appearing in the books of account were forged. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, firstly, even if the facts are admitted, the same constitute individual transactions and thus each would have to be viewed individually for the purpose of limitation. Both the Courts have held on fact that the circumstances reveal that there was a series of business transactions between the parties. RSA 2583 of 2008 2 Learned counsel has further argued that the appellant had only admitted to having transactions with the respondent during the period 1992 to 1994 and that the said admission could not be enlarged to encompass the period of 1998 when the debt in question was incurred. In my opinion it cannot be said that the liability had been foisted on the appellant only because of his admission regarding dealings which he had with the respondent in the period of 1992 to 1994. The Courts below have accepted the debt on a composite view of all the facts and it cannot be said that the whole case has been decided only on the basis of this admission of the appellant. Counsel has further urged that entries in books of account alone cannot prove the existence of a debt and has relied upon a Single Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. Satyanaarayana Raju V. Chekuri Gopalakrishnaraju reported as 2004 (3) RCR (Civil) 332. In that case the factual matrix as noticed by the Court is reproduced in para 12 of the judgment which is as under:- “I am unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear and categorical that the amounts lent to the defendant belong to the firm but he has filed the suit in his individual capacity and P.W.1 also noted the payment in the account books maintained by him and the defendant used to sign in the said note book in consideration of the receipt of amount, but he had deposed that book was taken away by the defendant. Absolutely, no convincing evidence is forthcoming why the defendant had taken away the said book, for what purpose and who had maintained these accounts, which were kept and maintained in the regular business and who made the relevant entries. None of the persons concerned had been examined except P.W.1. In fact the trial Court, at length, had discussed the evidence of RSA 2583 of 2008 3 P.W.1 and had arrived at a conclusion that in view of the categorical admissions made by P.W.1 himself, the defects cannot be cured and the plaintiff had miserably failed to establish his case.........................................................................” It would be seen that the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable. In the circumstances learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below regarding the existence of the debt as well as the fact that it was during normal business between the parties cannot be held to be either perverse or not arising from the material on the record. Consequently the questions of law proposed do not arise in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 05, 2008 sunita