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