IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4068 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 27, 2010. M/s Tarsem Kumar and Brothers ...Appellant(s) v. Ram Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri D.K. Jangra, Advocate, for Shri Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby appeal filed by defendant- respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial court was accepted and suit of the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- along with interest from respondent has been dismissed costs. As per the averments, appellant filed a suit alleging therein that the respondent-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the appellant-plaintiff on 12.8.2000 for his personal needs against his signatures on the bahis (accounts) maintained by the appellant-plaintiff and he also purchased spray articles for the value on Rs.1200/- against a bill dated 12.8.2000. The plaintiff was running commission agency. The defendant- respondent was selling his agricultural produce through him and was taking credit as per his needs. Respondent did not repay. A notice served on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff did not yield any results, hence this suit. Upon notice, the respondent-defendant denied having availed the alleged loan as well as the alleged entries in the bahi in regard thereto. In addition to averring that the alleged entries were forged and fabricated, some additional pleas were also raised. Upon analysing the evidence led by both the courts, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Sirsa reversed the findings recorded by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the suit filed by the appellant is based upon entries in his account books. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid entries in the account books, i.e., Ex.P1 to P6, which were placed on the record of the case, have not been proved by producing the scribe of the aforesaid entries. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby the plaintiff-appellant has been non-suited on the ground that he has failed to prove his case. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. January 27, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge