R. S. A. 3484 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. 3484 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 08, 2011 Sodhi and Company .... Appellant Vs. INFOLAB General and Allied Industries .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 9791-C of 2011 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 9792-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant Sodhi and Company has filed the instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Respondent-plaintiff INFOLAB General and Allied Industries R. S. A. 3484 of 2011 (O&M) 2 - a partnership firm, through its partner Surjit Singh, filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.80,483/-. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been purchasing Videocon products from the plaintiff and had been making payments for the same. Lastly, the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- on 07.01.2005, leaving balance due amount of Rs.80,483/-, for which the suit was filed. The defendant admitted the dealings between the parties, but pleaded that after making deductions, nothing remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff and rather plaintiff had to pay Rs.15,574/- to the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2010, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.80,483/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the institution of suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff-respondent produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. Necessary bills regarding supply of goods including transport bills were produced in evidence. The defendant's sole witness S. S. Sodhi (DW-1) admitted his signatures on some of the R. S. A. 3484 of 2011 (O&M) 3 documents and also stamps of defendant's firm on some documents. Defendant produced photostat copies of his ledger, but the same were not proved as the original ledgers were not brought. Consequently, adverse inference has rightly been drawn against the defendant. Plaintiff's evidence thus stands almost unrebutted. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant has admitted the dealings between the parties having purchased the goods from the plaintiff. The defendant claimed certain deductions out of the amount to be paid to the plaintiff. Consequently, onus was on the defendant to prove the said deductions or credit notes, but the defendant has miserably failed to prove the same. Consequently, the suit has been rightly decreed by both the courts below. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and have rightly come to the concurrent finding. The said concurrent finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that plaintiff is unregistered partnership firm, and therefore, suit by plaintiff is not maintainable. The contention cannot be accepted being beyond pleadings and evidence. No such objection was raised in the written statement that the plaintiff is unregistered firm. Consequently, the plaintiff had no occasion to depict that plaintiff is registered partnership firm. Factual objection raised by the defendant was to be raised in the written statement and only then, R. S. A. 3484 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plaintiff could have met the said objection, but no such plea was raised in the written statement, and therefore, plaintiff got no opportunity to lead evidence that plaintiff is registered partnership firm. Objection regarding non-registration of the partnership firm has to be specifically pleaded in the written statement. Consequently, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in absence of pleadings and evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. September 08, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE