IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8378/2007 Ishwar S.Renkuntla Petitioner Vs. The Veershaiva Co-operative Respondent Bank Ltd. Mr.Dharmendra Joshi, advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Bansode,advocate for respondent no.1 Coram : V.C.Daga,J. Date : 21st August,2008 P.C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is directed against judgment dated 22.6.2007 whereby appeal no.108/2006 is dismissed and appeal no.116/06 came to be allowed. 2] The dispute essentially revolves around the sanction of loan and withdrawal thereof . The learned lower appellate Court has appreciated the evidence and based on evidence the findings were recorded . Each and every finding recorded can be supported on the basis of evidence available on record. This being the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution reappreciation of evidence is not admissible .This Court being the Court of appeal cannot reappreciate the evidence and is not expected to substitute its own view in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless perversity in the order is demonstrated by the petitioner. 2 3] The petitioner is a businessman running a garment factory . It is not in dispute that the petitioner is maintaining books of accounts.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a tax payer . It was expected on the part of the petitioner to produce his books of accounts to establish as to how much amount was borrowed by him and to what extent the repayment was made . The petitioner cannot be allowed to rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof in view of law laid down in the case Hiralal and others Vs.Badkulal and others , reported in AIR,1953,Supreme Court ,225 wherein the relevant observations read as under : '' Suit for recovery of amount due on basis of adjustment of accounts signed by defendant. Defendant denying correctness of amount found due .Defendant who is in possession of account books kept by him and from which the balance could be ascertained should produce them before Court.He cannot be heard to say ,relying upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof , that it was no part of his duty to produce them unless he was called upon to do so.'' 4] In the above view of the matter no case is made out to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed in limine . This frivolous petition is filed ,therefore, only dismissal would not meet the ends of justice .The petitioner to pay cost quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. (V.C.Daga,J.)