The sufficiency and admissibility of evidence, particularly in relation to the authenticity of documents and signatures, are crucial in establishing liability in a civil suit.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The plaintiff had instituted a suit before the learned trial Court for a recovery of Rs. 1,64,145/- from the defendant/appellant herein. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court and in an appeal carried therefrom before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court modified the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. Standing aggrieved therefrom, the defendant/appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal here-before.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is working as an Agent of M/s BHS Fruit Commission Agency, Delhi. It is averred that On 22nd October, 2001, after settling the amounts with the defendant, the defendant acknowledged his having received an amount of Rs. 1,09.430/- from the plaintiff and duly acknowledged the same by signing the ledger. It is averred that the defendant also agreed to pay 5% interest on the amount till the final payment of the amount. It is averred that the defendant again acknowledged the liability on August 22, 2002 and an amount of Rs. 1,64,145/- had become due against the defendant. However, the defendant did not care to pay the amount to the plaintiff and accordingly, a legal notice was issued on August 28, 2002. The cause of action stated to have arisen on October, 22, 2001 when the amount was acknowledged by the defendant and thereafter on August 28, 2002. Hence this suit.

3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement wherein he had taken preliminary objection qua the plaintiff being not entitled to the interest at the rate of 5% cause of action and that the alleged ledger, basis of the suit, is not maintained in accordance with law and it is false document. On merits, it is alleged that the defendant had not settled any account with the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant never acknowledged qua his having received an amount of Rs. 1,09,430/- from the plaintiff. It is also denied that the defendant acknowledged the liability of Rs. 1,64,145/- respectively on 22nd October, 2001 and on August 22, 2002. It is averred that the defendant some time 14-15 years back took empty apple boxes of value of about Rs. 3,000/- and the plaintiff had recovered about Rs. 15,000/- from him by fraud and forcible acts. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/appellant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit amount as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery interest at the rate of 5% per month? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Relief.

6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. Now the defendant/appellant herein has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 27.11.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the Ex.PW1/A being the copy was admissible in evidence, in the absence of the original and in the absence of any averment or proof that the entry in the ledger was