Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 702
2012(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
RSA No.4185 of 2011
Ram Singh
v.
Rajiv Kumar and Company
{Decided on 30/05/2012}
For the Appellant:Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravinder N. Sharma, Advocate.
Recovery Suit--Account Statements--A suit for recovery could not be decreed only on the basis of entries in the account books without any independent corroboration in support thereof
Recovery Suit--The bahi entries in question and photocopies thereof, adduced on record have been held to be proved only upon the statement of the proprietor of the firm--The mere marking of an exhibit would not dispense with a proof of the document.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.17--Recovery Suit--Account Statements--A suit for recovery could not be decreed only on the basis of entries in the account books without any independent corroboration in support thereof--Even though entries in the books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are relevant but mere production and proof of these entries would not by themselves be seen to charge any person with liability and there has to be some independent evidence to prove the transaction.
No person can be charged with a liability merely on the basis of entries in books of accounts even though, such books of accounts may have been kept in the regular course of business--It was held that there has to be further evidence to prove payment of money, which may be in the books of accounts so that a person may be charged with liability thereunder--The only exception to such proposition would be, when a person fastening the liability accepts the correctness of the books of accounts and does not challenge them. (Para 18)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7 R.17--Recovery Suit--The bahi entries in question and photocopies thereof, adduced on record have been held to be proved only upon the statement of the proprietor of the firm--The mere marking of an exhibit would not dispense with a proof of the document--The name of the author of such entries was neither forthcoming nor had been examined in support of such bahi entries--There was no corroborative evidence led by the plaintiff/respondent in the nature of income tax returns etc. so as to prove such bahi entries on the basis of which, the suit had been decreed--Decree set aside. (Para 17)
Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.: - Defendant/appellant-Ram Singh is in second appeal before this Court.
2. Rajiv Kumar and Company through owner Rajiv Kumar/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,01,586/- i.e. Rs.3,79,990/- towards principal amount and Rs.1,21,596/- as interest. It was pleaded that the plaintiff firm was running a commission agency business and the defendant used to sell his agricultural produce to the plaintiff firm. It was also pleaded that the defendant used to borrow cash at different times as per his needs regarding which, entries were duly entered in the entry books/bahis. It was pleaded that upon settlement of the entire account, the defendant had acknowledged an amount of Rs.3,51,600/- due against him on 21.05.2005 and which entry was duly thumb marked by the defendant in the account books. Thereafter, various amounts were borrowed on different dates towards 04.06.2005 to 03.10.2005 regarding which, entries were also made in the account books, which were being maintained in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiff firm pleaded that after borrowing a total amount of Rs.3,79,990/-, the defendant stopped selling his agricultural produce to the firm and refused to return the amount, accordingly, the suit had been instituted for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,79,990/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per the custom prevalent in the market.
3. The defendant contested the suit stating that the entries in the account books were forged and he denied his thumb impressions against such entries. The defendant also categorically denied that he had never acknowledged an amount of Rs.3,51,600/- that was allegedly due to the plaintiff firm as on 21.05.2005. Defendant also denied his thumb mark against such entry.
4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the Trial Court:
1.Whether defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1402/- on 04.06.2005, Rs.1610/- on 17.06.2005, Rs.1547/- on 20.06.2005, Rs.1991/- on 20.06.2005, Rs.1675/- on 01.07.2005, Rs.815/- on 06.07.2005, Rs.1615 on 22.07.2005, Rs.865/- on 23.07.2005, Rs.350/- on 29.07.2005, Rs.555/- on 01.08.2005, Rs.1463/- on 03.08.2005, Rs.200/- on 04.08.2005, Rs.800/- on 06.08.2005, Rs.365/- on 09.08.2005, Rs.500/- on 13.08.2005, Rs.2690/- on 16.08.2005, Rs.300/- on 22.08.2005, Rs.1190/- on 23.08.2005, Rs.2000/- on 29.08.2005, Rs.330/- on 29.08.2005, Rs.1110/- on 05.09.2005, Rs.2076/- on 08.09.2005, Rs.1430/- on 27.09.2005 and Rs.1511/- on 03.10.2005? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so at what rate? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
6. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD
7. Whether entries in the books are forged and fabricated one and are without consideration and are not bearing signature/thumb impressions of the defendant?OPD
8. Whether suit is barred by time of limitation?OPD
9. Relief.
5. The Trial Court, while deciding issue No.1, returned the finding that the bahi entries, Ex.P-6 as regards Rs.3,51,600/- was dated 29.04.2004 and as such, held the claim of the plaintiff firm with regard to recovery of the aforesaid amount to be time barred as the suit for recovery has been filed on 22.05.2008 i.e. more than one year after the expiry of the limitation period as regards the amount of Rs.3,51,600/-. However, as regards the other entries, the total of which, came to Rs.28,390/-, the Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 01.02.2011 for recovery of the aforementioned amount i.e. Rs.28,390/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.05.2008 till the passing of the judgment and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the realization of the decretal amount.
6. Two civil appeals arose from the j
