R. S. A No. 3760 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A No. 3760 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.8.2008 Jagraj Singh ..... Appellant vs M/s. Harbans Lal Satnam Rai and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. One of the defendants is in appeal before this court against the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below where a suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2- plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 1,26,780/- was decreed only to the extent of Rs. 74,530/- along with interest. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs, who are in the business of sale and purchase of pesticides and fertilizer, filed a suit against the appellant and proforma respondents for recovery of amount due against them for various bills raised for sale of pesticides on credit. Considering the entries in the account books of the plaintiffs which had been maintained in due course of business and also the conduct of the appellant, the suit was decreed by the trial court. The judgment was upheld in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgments of the courts below deserve to be set aside mainly on the ground of non- compliance of Order VII Rule 17 CPC. He submitted that original bills had not been produced by the plaintiffs and in the absence of that the claim could not be accepted. However, this court does not find any merit in the submissions made. The plaintiffs in the present case produced carbon copies of the bills raised which according to them also bore signatures of the appellant. The original thereof could not possibly be in possession of the plaintiffs. Further the court has categorically noticed that the appellant never raised any objection for production of copies of the bills or the account books at R. S. A No. 3760 of 2006 2 the appropriate stage. Mere averments in the written statement will not be enough. These facts coupled with the conduct of the appellant, where he even denied the factum of his filing written statement and even engaging Mr. H. S. Sekhon as his counsel goes to show that the appellant was out to tell lies after lies. It is this very written statement which the appellant wanted to rely to raise objection for violation of Order VII Rule 17 CPC whereas on the other hand he even denied filing of the same in court. In my opinion, the findings of the courts below are simple finding of fact recorded on correct appreciation of material on record. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 28.8.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge