RSA No. 518 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 518 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.5.2011. Sher Singh .......Appellant Vs. Inder Chand ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on the entries in the account books. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the defendant had dealings with his firm. The defendant had approached the plaintiff with assurance that he would sell his agricultural produce through him. On this assurance, the plaintiff advanced money to the defendant. Defendant had secured cash to the tune of ` 38,000/- on 16.4.2003. An entry in this regard was made in the cash book and ledger, maintained by the plaintiff. Since the said amount had not been returned by the defendant, suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, admitted that the plaintiff was running the business of commission agency. RSA No. 518 of 2011 (O&M) -2- However, the other contentions in the plaint were denied. It was denied that the defendant had ever taken loan of ` 38,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.4.2003. In fact, the defendant had dealings with the commission agency of the plaintiff since the year 1973- 1974. In the year 1984, defendant had deposited an amount of ` 20,000/- with the plaintiff. The said amount was not adjusted in the account of the defendant. When the defendant demanded the amount deposited by him, the plaintiff refused to pay the same and had obtained the signatures of the defendant on certain blank papers, pronotes and receipts. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest? If so, at what rate ? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs has no right, locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and concealed the material and patent facts from the court? OPD 6. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the RSA No. 518 of 2011 (O&M) -3- defendant, by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff is running the business of commission agency. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed as per the contentions in the plaint. The debit voucher Ex. P-1 was proved on the record, whereas the entry in the cash book was proved on record as Ex. P-2. Entry in the ledger was proved as Ex. P-3. The said entry had been further incorporated in the ledger for the next years and the same was proved as Ex. P-4. Defendant admitted his signatures on Ex. P-1 but took up the plea that the same had been obtained on blank papers. However, the said plea of the defendant was rightly declined by the courts below as the plaintiff had written in his own hand in Punjabi “Athhatti Hazar” (thirty eight thousand). Hence, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant that he had signed on the blank papers was an after-thought and could not be relied upon. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2011 Gurpreet