R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.8.2009
Ajaib Singh
......Appellant
Versus
M/s Bhullar and Brothers
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff Ajaib Singh filed a suit for recovery, which was
dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Fatehgarh Sahib
vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2007. In appeal, the said
judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Fatehgarh
Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2007. Hence, the
present appeal.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 2
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-
“2. Ajaib Singh filed main suit for recovery of
Rs.1,56,250/- against M/s Bhullar and brothers through its
propritor Kewaljit Singh on the allegations that defendant
firm is running a shop of commission agent at grain
market Khamanon under the name and style of M/s
Bhullar and brothers. That plaintiff used to sell his
produce at the defendant shop i.e. 125 quintal 30 kg. on
15.10.2002, 46 quintal 6 kg. On 22.10.2002 and 50
quintal 22 kg. on 26.10.2002. That total price of paddy
sold was Rs.1,23,032/- but defendant did not pay the
above said amount to the plaintiff. J form was issued by
the defendant. That defendant had forged the signatures
of the plaintiff on J form dated 26.10.2002. That plaintiff
is a poor farmer and illiterate. Defendant was requested
to pay the price of the paddy sold on different dates.
Instead of making payment defendant filed a false
application to the police authority against the plaintiff to
avoid payment.
3. Upon notice defendant appeared, filed written
statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff inter alia
on the grounds that the suit is not maintainable in the
present form. That plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the suit. That suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 3baseless. On merits, the defendant admitted this fact that
the plaintiff sold paddy at the shop of the defendant worth
Rs.1,23,034-02 paise but on 15.10.2002 Rs.69,573-82P,
on 22.10.2002 Rs.25,574-48P and on 26.10.2002
Rs.27,885-82P were credited in the account of the
plaintiff in the account books. That plaintiff had been
visiting the shop of the defendant even after 26.10.2002
and on different dates i.e. received Rs.10,000/- on
2.11.2002, Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.11.2002, Rs.20,000/- on
14.11.2002; Rs. 2,000/- on 5.12.2002 and Rs. 8,965-98P
on 7.12.2002 and in this way Rs.1,40,965-98P was
borrowed by the plaintiff from the defendant firm up till
7.12.2002 and after adjusting the price of the paddy sold ,
Rs.17,931-96P due to this plaintiff was carried to next
year account i.e. 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 in the books of
accounts. Plaintiff had borrowed Rs.16,000/- on
16.4.2003; Rs.1,15,000/- on 19.4.2003 and Rs.1,48,931-
96P was due from the plaintiff up to 19.4.2003 and Rs.
26,034-04P was due as interest up to 31.3.2004. Total
payment due from the plaintiff was Rs.1,74,966/- and this
amount was carried into account of the plaintiff for the
year 2004-05 on 1.4.2004 and till date amount of interest
due from the plaintiff was Rs.38,714-96P. That defendant
firm is keeping and maintaining account books regularly.
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 4Accounts books are being produced in Income tax and
Sale tax department from the time to time. That plaintiff
signed entry of Rokar bahi when he received payment
from the defendant. That Rs.1,87,645-96P was due from
the plaintiff and denied all allegations of the plaintiff.”
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover
Rs.1,56,250/- along with interest on account of sale price
of paddy? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of
action to file the present suit? OPP
4. Relief. “
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against the
defendant basing his claim that he had sold paddy to the defendant
firm worth Rs.1,23,032/- but the defendant had failed to pay the price
of paddy to him. The case of the plaintiff further was that the
defendant had forged his signatures on J-form dated 26.10.2002.
The case of the defendant, on the other hand, was that
the plaintiff had sold paddy worth Rs.1,23,034-02 paise and had
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 5
borrowed Rs.1,40,965-98 paise during the year 2002-03 and
Rs.1,31,000/- during the year 2003-04 on different dates. It was
averred that Rs.1,87,645.96P were still outstanding against the
plaintiffs.
Both the sides led their evidence in support of their case.
The defendant proved on record entries Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-18
maintained by it in its accounts book/ledger. The plaintiff examined
PW-2 Navdeep Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert, who
examined the questioned signatures of the plaintiff on Ex.D-9 with his
standard signatures on entries Ex.D-6 and Ex.D-7. As per the
opinion of the said expert, the disputed signatures did not match with
the questioned signatures. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff and
defendant were having dealing with each other. The defendant is
doing the business of commission agent firm and the plaintiff had
been selling his paddy crop to the defendant. The plaintiff had failed
to prove on record any J-form forged by the defendant. Rather from
the accounts book proved on record, it was evident that, in fact, the
amount was due against the plaintiff. From the opinion of the
handwriting and finger print expert, it is evident that entry Ex.D-9
does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that since one of the entries was found to
be forged, no reliance could be placed on the other entries proved
on record by the defendant. However, there is no force in the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. The other
R.S.A.No. 3440 of 2007 (O&M) 6
entries on record except entry Ex.D-9 have been duly proved by the
defendant and, in fact, there was an outstanding amount against the
plaintiff.
In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 28, 2009
anita