The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish the admissibility and proof of the bahi entry in accordance with the law.

Anita Chaudhry, J.

By way of the present Regular Second Appeal, the appellant-defendant prays for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011 passed by District Judge, Jind (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court was set aside. The parties are being referred as shown in the Lower Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 2% per month was filed by Ram Kumar on the plea that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from him and had executed a bahi entry in his favour. The bahi was signed by the defendant, in token of its correctness. The defendant had agreed to repay the amount alongwith interest but the amount had not been repaid and the interest had accumulated to Rs.25,000/- and in this manner a sum of Rs.60,000/- was due. The plaintiff also prayed for future interest at the same rate. A legal notice was sent through the counsel but the amount was not paid, therefore, the suit was filed. In the written statement the defendant averred that the plaintiff had no licence to indulge in money lending business and denied having taken any loan. Plea of limitation, cause of action and maintainability was also raised. He denied that he had signed any bahi entry and pleaded that it was forged and false.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of alleged amount alongwith interest? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

5. Relief.

4. The trial Court, on appraisal of the entire evidence gave a finding against the plaintiff on issue No. 1 and the suit was dismissed.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal which was allowed by the First Appellate Court and the findings of the trial Court were reversed.

6. Hence, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant had strenuously urged that the bahi entry had not been proved and the original bahi was never produced alongwith the plaint and only a leaf was produced and there was no revenue stamp nor any receipt. It was urged that when a case is based on the bahi entries the plaintiff is required to prove that the bahi had been maintained in accordance with law and the bahi entry has to be proved. It was contended that the Lower Court had dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court had misread the evidence and had wrongly read the statement as an admission and had ignored other factors. It was urged that bahi was not page marked and the plaintiff had admitted to other borrowings and he was a money lendor and had no licence and the defendant was not required to lead any evidence. It was urged that Order 7 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that original book of accounts has to be produced at the time of filling of the plaint together with a copy of the entry on which he relies but the original bahi had not been produced and mere production of leaf would not dispense with the proof thereof and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court be reversed. Reliance was placed upon Karnail Singh v. M/s Kalra Brothers, Sirsa, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 380.

8. Per contra the submission made on behalf of the respondent was that the defendant had admitted that he had taken a loan when Ram Kumar was living in the village which is an admission. It was contended that a handwriting expert had compared the signatures of Randhir with the signatures available on the Power of Attorney and the written statement and had given a clear report that the signatures on the bahi were of Randhir and there was no rebuttal to that evidence. It was contended that there was no requirement of bahi entry being stamped and reference was mad