A court's respect for lower courts' factual findings limits appellate intervention unless legal errors are evident.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,94,192.77P, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Memo of appearance filed on behalf of the appellant in Court today is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to file Vakalatnama in Registry within one week from today.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Firm/respondent herein, is an authorised dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and running a petrol pump for sale of petrol and diesel in retail on cash and credit basis. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that defendant/appellant had purchased diesel for his vehicles/Trucks during the financial year 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 through his respective drivers. The defendant used to repay the outstanding amount from time to time. The defendant had agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum for payments made 15 days after the due date. The defendant had started purchasing diesel from the plaintiff w.e.f. 25.08.2016 and total amount of Rs.6,89,092.77P was due against him. After August 2017, defendant had stopped purchasing diesel from the plaintiff. During this period, defendant had paid an amount of Rs.1,94,900/- through cash and bank transfer. As on 01.04.2018, amount of Rs.4,94,192.77 P was due against the defendant. Plaintiff had requested defendant to clear the dues, and had even served legal notice dated 13.03.2019 to the defendant however, to no avail. As such, plaintiff had instituted the instant suit for recovery on 28.05.2019.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2023, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jind had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the said amount of Rs.4,94,192.77 P along with interest @ 6% per annum. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2023. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the defendant.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed as the Ld. Courts below had wrongly relied upon the ledger statement/ Ex.P25 presented by respondent vide which it was alleged that suit amount is pending towards the appellant. It is contended that, however, the learned Courts below did not consider that ledger account are used to prepare on the pleasure of party who is presented or holding the ledger account. Also, Ld. Court did not appreciate the statement given by PW-2 i.e. Vijay Garg Accountant who deposed in his statement that the ledger was prepared by him on the direction of Ishwar Singh i.e. respondent and he prepared Ex.P-22 to Ex.P-25. Thus, reliance made upon ledger account of respondent is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that ownership of the defendant over the vehicles/trucks was not proven. The Ld. Appellate Court has also wrongly relied upon and held that partly admission can be considered as full admission and thus, admission of the appellant while deposing that he was having transaction with the respondent was wrongly considered and recovery was taken as proved against the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Courts also did not consider contention of the appellant that since the appellant was not the owner of vehicle Nos.HR-56A-1921, HR-46C- 3127 and HR-61B-4166 during the financial year 2016, 2017 and 2018, thus, purchase of fuel for the above said vehicles cannot be proved against the appellant. Appellant also relied upon the statement given by RTO Inspector and the RC Clerk i.e. Sandeep Kumar who also proved the ownership of vehicles were not in the name of appe