JUDGMENT
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
1. The petitioner-M/s Sadhu Ram Nanak Chand (to be referred as “the firm”) which is partnership firm, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4145.00 paise against the respondents who constitute a joint Hindu Family, of which respondent No. 3 is the Karta Respondents No. l and 2 are latter’s sons. Details of various amounts advanced by the firm are given in para No. 4 of the plaint.
2. In the written statement, the respondents pleaded that a sum of Rs. 2280.50 paise only, was borrowed by them from the firm and further that sale-price of the produce sold by them to/through the firm on 01.11.1976, 08.11.1976, 19.5.1977, 29.10.1977 and 03.11.1977, viz. Rs. 5496.30 paise should be set-off against the amount borrowed, as the same (sale-price) was due from the latter. The firm was also stated to be money-lender but it does not hold a money-lending licence, and as such, the suit has pleaded to be not maintainable. It was further pleaded that firm should have, in fact, filed a suit for rendition of accounts.
3. Trial was conducted in respect of the following issues:
1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2675.50 np on various dates from the plaintiff as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest? It so, at what rate and to what amount? OPD
4. Whether the defendants have sold grains etc. worth Rs. 5496.30 np as alleged and are entitled to adjust the same? If so, to what effect? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD.
6. Relief.
4. Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 2280.50 paise only, with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. But, the first appellate court accepted appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the suit, leaving parties to bear own costs.
5. The petitioner filed this revision challenging dismissal of the suit by the first appellate court.
6. Today, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the respondent. As such, I have heard arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the records.
7. The trial court had decreed the suit, only for a sum of Rs. 2280.50 paise i.e. the amount which had, admittedly, been borrowed by the respondents, and the claim with regard to the remaining amount was declined. The relevant portion of the trial court judgment reads as under:
“In this case, a perusal of the pleadings of the parties shows that details of various accounts advanced, as per version of the plaintiff, are given in para No. 4 of the plaint, and, in the written statement, the defendants have admitted the receipt of amounts which are mentioned at item Nos. l, 2, 5, 8, 9 to 15 mentioned in para “No. 4 of the plaint, while the other items are not admitted. The translated copies of books of accounts pertaining to these transactions are Ex.P.1, P.2, P.4, P.6 to P.12….
In view of the admission of the defendant, entries pertaining to the total amount of Rs. 2280.50 np are held as proved.”
8. Strangely enough, the first appellate court has dismissed the suit even qua the said admitted amount, observing that the appellant failed to prove the thumb-impressions/signatures of the respective respondents against the relevant entries in their (of appellant) “bahi”. When the respondents had admitted in the written statement that a sum of Rs. 2280.50 paise was borrowed by them (on different dates), the appellants were not required to independently also prove their claim to that extent or to get the entries or the thumb-impressions/signatures of the respondents appearing against those, proved in evidence. Admission of a fact, it need not be reiterated, is the best form of proof.
9. The respondents as discussed in detail by the trial court, had failed to prove their plea with regard to sale of their produce worth Rs. 5496.30 paise to through the firm or any sum being due from the firm as price of the produce sold to it by them. As in the judgment of the first appellate court, there is no discussion, at all, with regard to this plea, It is clear that the respondents had not addressed any arguments with regard to the correctness of finding of the trial court about their failure to prove the plea of sale of produce worth Rs. 5496.30 paise by them to the firm, and had, thus, accepted the correctness of finding of the trial court in this regard.
10. It appears that it was due to the fact that the respondents were conscious of the weakness of their defence and the illegality committed by the first Appellate Court in accepting their appeal, that they did not put in appearance in this court, to contest this appeal when it was taken up for hearing today.
11. In the light of what has been discussed above, the judgment and decree (of first appellate court) reversing the well-reasoned and well-considered judgment of the trial court, are held to be illegal and as such, liable to be set aside. The appeal is, accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored.