(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2004 Municipal Council, Parbhani, .. Appellant Through its Chief Officer. (Original plaintiff) versus Kishanrao Gangaram Khanapurkar, Aged : 62 years, .. Respondent Occupation : Nil, (Original defendant) R/o. Kumbhar Galli, Parbhani. ....................... Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) 2. The concurrent findings recorded against the plaintiff, Municipal Council, Parbhani, are questioned in the Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits, the substantial question of law that could be formulated is, whether the courts were justified in ignoring the audit report furnished by the Auditor appointed by the Collector, which has fixed liability against the employee / cashier of the Municipal Council, Parbhani. 4. The factual matrix about the status of the respondent to be cashier in Municipal Council or having domain at a particular period, need not be questioned. The fact remains, when there is a suit for recovery, it was a obligation cast on the plaintiff to prove the entries to fix liability. Mere production of audit report stating that the defendant has misappropriated the amount, by itself will not tantamount to fix liability. I could see, some vested interest have played mischief against the plaintiff Municipal Council, however, for that purpose, Second Appeal need not be admitted on the substantial question of law. 5. I find no merit in the appeal. However, remedies of the Municipal Council to initiate other appropriate proceedings (3) remain unbridled. 6. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1110