Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Pappu Cheema alias Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Om Parkash ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.4,87,489/- (Rs.3,58,448/- as principal and Rs. 1,29,041/- as interest thereupon at the rate of 12%) against the defendant- petitioner. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the plaintiff-respondent came forward with an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence. That plea filed by the plaintiff- respondent came be allowed by the learned Trial Court. The defendant-petitioner is in revision against it. In the course of the affirmative evidence, the plaintiff- respondent had relied upon certain bahi entries which contain the various dates on which dates amount had been paid to the Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2008 -2- **** defendant-petitioner as advance. In all, there are 45 items which stand quoted in the relevant plaint (Annexure P-1). Item no.37 in the course thereof pertains to payment of advance of Rs. 2 lacs on 7.8.2000. The averments made in the course of the impugned application (Annexure P-3), were as under:- The plaintiff-respondent is “suffering from diabetics diseases, therefore, amentia prevails over his mind”. The further averment, in the context, is that “at the time of preparing the list of roznamcha bahi Ex. P1 and P2, Rokar bahi Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 and Khata bahi Ex. P3 and P_4 he had inadvertently slipped to enter the entry of 7.8.2000 bearing amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs) by an oversight.” It was on that account that plaintiff-respondent applied for the leave of the Court to include that amount in the rokar bahi and Khata bahi. In view of the fact that Annexure P-3 was not found to be very expressive in the manner of need for additional evidence plea, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent was called upon to indicate how exactly the filing of the plea had been occasioned and what material purpose the allowance thereof would serve in adjudication by the learned Trial Court. He explained that such like items are first entered in the roznamcha bahi the entries made wherein are thereafter transferred to the Rokar bahi and Khata bahi. In that very context, learned counsel explains that the amount did Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2008 -3- **** come to be entered in roznamcha Bahi. but was not transferred to the Rokar bahi and khata bahi In view of the clarification indicated by the learned counsel, it is apparent that the leave of the Court is sought for the transfer of entry at item no.37 from roznamcha bahi to Rokar bahi and Khata bahi. Though it is apparent that item no.37 did come to be indicated in the plaint, it did not find mention in the documentation adduced at the trial in the form of roznamcha bahi and khata bahi. The plaintiff-respondent was required to prove the entries in Roznamcha bahi, Rokar bahi and khata bahi in order to request to drawal of an inference that the account book had been maintained regularly and in ordinary course of business. Any amount missed out therefrom would have indicated deficiency in the regular maintenance thereof. If a dereliction of that type is proved on record, it may disable the party relying upon the account book to request for drawal of a favourable inference in accordance with law. Feeling the heat of that omission, the plaintiff-respondent made the impugned plea in order to be able to wriggle out of the predicament of having to explain why the relevant entry was not transferred to Rokar Bahi and khata bahi dated 7.8.2000. Further, the clarificatory resistance offered by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is at variance with the following averment made in the course of the two applications which is to the effect that “and this amount as a loan has been duly shown in the roznamcha bahi, rokar Bahi and Khata Bahi on dated 7.8.2000”. Civil Revision No. 5075 of 2008 -4- **** In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order 19.4.2008 shall stand set aside. The interim stay granted vide order dated 19.9.2008 by a Coordinate Bench (Vinod K. Sharma, J.) shall stand vacated. The vacation thereof shall be intimated forthwith by the Registry to the learned District Judge concerned and also the learned Trial Court. January 12,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE