R.S.A.No.3796 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3796 of 2006 Date of Decision : 13.12.2010 Housing Board Haryana ...Appellant Versus M/s Sai Projects Construction Company Private ...Respondents Limited & another CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 13.05.2006, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.23,858.65. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that while releasing final payment, a sum of Rs.66,552.96 was paid in excess to the defendant. The Accountant General, Haryana, on audit of the record of the appellant, raised an objection that excess payment has been made. It is pointed out by the appellant that some amount could be recovered, but the amount of Rs.23,856.65 could not be recovered, which led to filing of the present suit. R.S.A.No.3796 of 2006 2 The learned first Appellate Court has found that no witness has been examined by the appellant to prove the audit report and, thus, such audit report cannot be read into evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has examined PW-1 Naresh Mahajan, who has admitted the audit report in his evidence, therefore, the audit report is admissible in evidence. The audit report by itself does not create any liability. It was for the plaintiff to produce the record that the payment has been made in excess. To prove such fact, the accounts of the appellant was required to be examined as to how much amount the respondents are entitled and as to how much payment has been made to the respondents. There is no such evidence. Therefore, I do not find there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 13.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE