RSA No. 295 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 295 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 08 , 2010 Darshan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Harmesh Lata and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh , Advocate for the appellants. **** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery. The undisputed facts are that the appellants had a long standing business relationship with the respondents. It is during the course of this business relationship that the appellants were alleged to have taken various amounts of money as advance. Both the courts relied upon the Bahis which were presented as well as on the testimony of the accountant to hold that the transactions of business were duly proved. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the bahi entries which if tried to open can be opened, can be read into evidence? RSA No. 295 of 2010(O&M) 2 ii)Whether the bahi entries alone are sufficient to charge the person with liability? iii)Whether both the courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence led by the appellant-defendant? iv)Whether the bahi entries requires some independent evidence for the corroboration of the entries? v) Whether the provisions of Order 7 rule 17 CPC are mandatory in nature? Learned counsel has argued that even if it is said that the accountant had supported the entries made in the Bahi, yet there were four or five entries (which constituted the bulk of the money now sought to be recovered) which were admittedly not in the hand of the said accountant and, therefore, the same could not be considered. The courts below have accepted the explanation of the said accountant that those entries were made by a young apprentice in the presence and on the asking of the said accountant as well as the appellants. It would be seen that questions No.(ii), (iii) and iv) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the testimony of the said accountant and I regret my inability to accept the argument that his testimony has been misread in such a perverse manner that the said finding is liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once questions No. (ii) to (iv) are held against the appellants, questions No. (i) and (v) do not arise. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 08 , 2010 sunita