An account book is regularly kept in the course of business if it is kept in a systematic and orderly manner, with entries made at or near the time of the transactions recorded. The entries must be supported by other evidence, such as invoices, receipts, or the testimony of witnesses who can speak to the transactions.

JUDGMENT: This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by Sri R. C. Misra, District Judge of Sambalpur, reversing the decision of Sri B. K. Misra, Munsif of Bargarh, arising out of a suit brought by plaintiff Birbal Prasad Agarwala for recovery of a sum of Rs. 611/10 representing the price of goods supplied to the defendants and for recovery of customary damages by way of interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum.

The plaintiff has laid his claim at Rs. 650/-. The plaintiffs case is that he was a businessman at Kadobahal; but as he was not on good terms with the Gountia of the village, he had to shift his business to Jhilminda at a distance of nearly two miles from his original place of business. The first defendant is the second defendants daughters son. The plaintiffs allegation is that the second defendant, who had a retail shop at Kadobahal, used to take articles from the shop of the plaintiff on credit.

The suit is for the price of the articles alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants on 22-1-1952. The plaintiff relies upon the entries in his credit register on that particular date. It is to be noted, all the articles, alleged to have been supplied to the credit of the defendants for the value of which the plaint ft has brought the suit, were supplied on that particular day and they have been entered in one page of the credit register which is Ext. 8, the entries being marked on Ext. 8/a.

2. The defence is a denial of the transaction and further that Ext. 8/a is not at all genuine. According to the defendants, they had never taken the aforesaid articles worth Rs. 611/10 on 22-1-1952 or on any other date and that they do not owe any money to the plaintiff and that a false suit has been brought on account of the plaintiff and the defendants having supported different candidates in the election of the year 1952, one of the candidates belonging to the congress party and the other having been set up by the Ganatantra Parished.

3. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit finding that Ext. 8 cannot be taken to be an account book regularly kept within the meaning of S. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. He virtually doubted the genuineness of Ext. 8/a. He further found that there is no other evidence to fix the liability of the defendants as required under the provisions of S. 34. He had disbelieved P. Ws. 2 and 3 on whose evidence the plaintiff relied for the purpose of corroboration of the entries.

4. The lower appellate Court however has reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the finding that Ext. 8 is an account book regularly kept in the course of business and is relevant under S. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also used the evidence of P. W. 2 for the purpose of corroboration. He relied upon the replies given by the defendants to the plaintiff during the course of correspondence between them.

5. I will first examine how far the testimony of P. W. 2 Gunamoni Mohapatra can be used as evidence for the purpose of corroborating the entries in Ext. 8/a. It is to be noted, the trial Court had completely disbelieved the evidence of this witness on a thorough discussion. He belongs to a different village. Rightly therefore the trial Court characterised him as a mere chance witness. He made an observation that the witness might have been hired for the purpose to give evidence.

That apart, he discarded his evidence as hot satisfying the condition of S. 34 as it is too vague. There is no doubt that great weight is to be attached to the view of the trial Court in the matter of appreciation, of oral evidence as he had the advantage of seeing and examining the witness. The lower appellate Court certainly could come to a different finding only by giving cogent and compelling reasons. Par from giving such compelling reasons, the lower appellate Court has agreed with the view of the trial Court that the evidence of P. W. 2 is vague but nevertheless he has used it a