( 1 ). Suit for recovery was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he was the authorised agent of Indian Airlines for the sale of its tickets. Respondent/defendant had been purchasing the tickets from the appellant since 1996 for which bills/ invoices were issued. As per practice representative of the respondent company used to sign those bills/ invoices in token of having received bills/invoices and the tickets. On behalf of the respondent sometime its employees would come to collect the tickets and sometime proprietor himself. Amounts of the bills/invoices was either paid at that time and at times bills amounts were paid lateron. In the year 1997 respondent purchased tickets but failed to pay the amounts, when oral requests failed to yield the result the appellant issued registered notice on 19th January, 1998. It was duly received by the respondent on 11th February, 1998. Despite notice when respondent failed to make the payment, suit for recovery was filed.

( 2 ). This suit was contested by the respondent, primarily on the ground that tickets against those bills/ invoices Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/30 had not been received by the respondent. That the bills/ invoices had been forged and fabricated. The transaction as alleged had been denied by the respondent. According to Respondent it was appellant s employee Yuvraj Singh who committed the act of forgery and fraud. This fact was in the knowledge of the appellant. The appellant had in fact lodged police report against the said employee. Hence, no liability of the respondent to pay the amount against invoices/bills ex. PW2/1 to PW2/30.

( 3 ). Parties led evidence. Jitender Nath Sharma, director of the appellant was examined as PW-1 beside shyam Lal Kamta as PW-2. Respondent examined its proprietor Sumit Kaira as DW-1. By the impugned Judgment suit of the appellant has been dismissed.

( 4 ). Aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, present appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that learned trial court ignored the settled proposition of law that the person who alleges a particular fact has to prove the same. Instead of following this principle the court below held appellant responsible to prove the facts alleged by the respondent. Secondly, court below erroneously presumed that a document admitted by the respondent Ex. PW2/12 still required to be proved by the appellant. Court below thus fell in error to hold that those of the employees of the respondent who signed the bills/invoices ought to have been produced in evidence by the appellant.

( 5 ). Thus the short points for our consideration is whether the documents Ex. PW2/1 to Pw2/30 stood proved? if so could these be ignored? whether Ex. PW2/l to PW2/30 are forged and fabricated documents and finally was the trial court Justified in placing the burden on the appellant to prove those facts as alleged by the respondent.

( 6 ). To appreciate these challenges let us have glance to the evidence adduced by the parties. Shri jitender Nath Sharma appearing as PW-1 proved that the respondent had been buying tickets from his company since 16th October, 1996. He had been remitting payments against the bills/ invoices raised by his company. However, in the year 1997 various tickets were purchased by the respondent for which bills/ invoices were raised but payment not made. He proved the carbon copies of those bills/invoices as Ex. PW-2/1 to PW-2/30. These bills/ invoices are duly endorsed by the employees of the respondent in acknowledgement of having received the tickets. These employees used to collect the tickets and, therefore, signed the bills/invoices. Demand for the outstanding amount was made. Respondent sought time to make the payment. He sought time because at that time he was facing financial crisis. However, when payment was not received, legal notice Ex. PW-1/3 was issued. Respondent avoided to receive Ex PW-1/3. He therefore was got served personally in the presence of a Notary public. Report of