R.S.A. No. 1935 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1935 of 2006 Date of decision: September 03, 2008 Mewa Singh .. Appellant v. Kandu Mal Brij Lal, Budhlada .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant-appellant (hereinafter described as `the appellant') is in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter described as `the respondent-firm') was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-firm, who is carrying on the business of Commission Agent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,66,650/- ( Rs. 1,33,325/- on account of principal with equal amount as interest thereon). It was submitted that the appellant used to sell his crops through the respondent-firm and also used to borrow money from time to time. On Fugan Sudi 10 Saal 2052, the appellant settled his account with the respondent-firm and on that date, balance of Rs. 1,22,000/- was outstanding against the appellant, which was confirmed. On the same date, another sum of Rs. 12,000/- in cash was borrowed. Admitting a total sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- due on that date, the appellant had put his signatures on the bahi maintained by the respondent-firm in due course of business. Thereafter, certain more purchases were made from the shop of the respondent-firm, besides that some cash amount was also borrowed, in terms of which the amount due against the appellant became Rs. 1,49,455/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 16,130/- was paid, thereby leaving balance of Rs. 1,33,325/- and adding interest thereon to the tune of Rs. 1,33,325/-, the claim was made for recovery of Rs. 2,66,650/-. The learned trial Court partly accepting the claim of the respondent- firm decreed the suit to the tune of Rs. 1,17,870/- along with interest. In appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the appellant failed. R.S.A. No. 1935 of 2006 [2] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-firm had failed to bring on record any material to show as to how the amount was drawn as balance as on Fugan Sudi 10 Saal 2052 to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000/-. No material was placed on the record by the respondent-firm to justify the same. The entries or the payments made by the appellant were not accounted for and thereafter also the respondent-firm had not properly maintained the accounts. He further submitted that mere signatures of the appellant will not prove that he had borrowed the money or confirmed the balance as on that date as the books of account were written in a language unknown to the appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the same. A perusal of the document showing the signatures of the appellant on the date, vide which he confirmed the balance of Rs.1,34,000/- in the books of account of the respondent-firm, clearly shows that while putting his signatures, the appellant even mentioned the figure of `Rs. 1,34,000/-' in his own hand. The appellant has not denied his signatures in the books of account so produced by the respondent-firm. Keeping that fact in view and also considering the admission of the respondent-firm that thereafter the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 16,130/-, the learned Court below did not accept the claim of the respondent-firm for the transactions which were effected thereafter on account of various purchases made by the appellant from the shop of the respondent-firm and decreed the suit only to the extent of Rs. 1,17,870/-, after reducing Rs. 16,130/- from Rs. 1,34,000/-, the balance of which was confirmed by the appellant. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant himself confirmed the balance of Rs. 1,34,000/- as on date in the books of account of the respondent-firm maintained in due course of business, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.9.2008 mk