Sunil Gaur, J.

1. Impugned judgment/decree of 25th August, 2009 mandates the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 18,64,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the Respondent, who was the Selling Agent of the Appellant Company by virtue of Agreement of 22nd May, 2007.

2. In terms of the aforesaid Agreement (Ex.P-1), Respondent had made a security deposit of Rs. 5 lac, which was to earn interest @ 9% per annum and Respondent was to get commission @ Rs. 80/- per case/box of country liquor and against prior payment, consignments of the liquor was supplied by the Appellant to the Respondent vide Challan/Invoices (Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13). In addition, the Respondent is said to have deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash and another amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- by way of a Pay Order (Ex.PW-1/14) with the Appellant on 7th June, 2007 and again on 6th July, 2007, Respondent claims to have paid Rs. 1 lac by cheque to the Appellant.

3. According to the Respondent, aforesaid payments were made in terms of the afore-referred Agreement but the Appellant had failed to supply the liquor against the payments made and thus, the Agreement between the parties stood frustrated and cancelled. As per the Respondent, Appellant despite notice of 4th September, 2007 (Ex.PW-1/18) had failed to supply the Statement of Account reflecting the aforesaid transaction between the parties.

4. Respondent on the strength of Statement of Account (Ex.PW-1/19) had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,64,000/- against the appellant, who in the written statement had admitted the relationship between the parties which were governed by the Agreement of 22nd May, 2007 (Ex.P-1). However, the stand taken by the Appellant before the trial Court was that on account of breach of the terms of the aforesaid Agreement, the Respondent was liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs and to institute such suit, Appellant/Defendant had reserved its right.

5. Though Issue regarding lack of cause of action and of Respondent/Plaintiff being guilty of committing breach of Agreement in question were framed, but the Issue regarding the entitlement of the Respondent/Plaintiff to recover the suit amount was the one on which both the sides had addressed arguments in this appeal.

6. Impugned judgment/decree of 25th August, 2009 decreeing the suit of the Appellant on the strength of Challan/Invoices (Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13) is assailed by learned counsel for the Appellant by contending that the Statement of Account (Ex.PW-1/19) which is the basis of the Respondent's suit is a denied document and is inadmissible in evidence as the entries therein have not been certified as per Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891. It is pointed out by appellant's counsel that no books of accounts were ever produced in evidence and thus the very basis of the Respondent's suit gets knock down. Reliance was placed by Appellant's counsel upon decisions in Sudir Engineering Company v. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 (34) DRJ 86; Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through legal heirs v. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs, AIR 2000 SC 426; L.K. Advani & Ors v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 66(1997) DLT 618; and Harish Mansukhani v. Ashok Jain, 2009 II AD (Del) 30, to contend that the extract of some accounts (Ex.PW-1/19) is inadmissible in evidence.

7. To controvert the aforesaid stand of the Appellant, learned counsel for the Respondent drew the attention of this Court to the Challans/Invoices (Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/9) to point out that aforesaid documents are the admitted documents, which clearly establish that the supply in respect of these challans/invoices were made by the Appellant to the Respondent and so, even if Statement of Account (Ex.PW-1/19) is ignored, still, on the basis of aforesaid undisputed documentary evidence, Appellant is liable to refund the security amount as well as to pay the commission upon the aforesaid Challan/Invoices (Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/9).

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, and upo