A document or signature can be proved by calling a person who signed or wrote the document or by calling a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document.

Tej Shankar, J.

1. This is defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the learned trial Court for recovery of rupees 11,765.52 with 12% interest per annum. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,929.48. The parties are private limited companies. The defendant authorised the plaintiff to purchase coal for them from M. P. Coalfield and other parties. The plaintiff supplied coal from 30-4-1980 to 31-1-1981 as detailed in para. 3 of the plaint of the value of Rs. 40,310.78. A sum of Rs. 4,590/- towards truck charges and Rs. 322.51 towards other expenses were also payable. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,223.30 was payable. An entry was made in the account books which were maintained in the ordinary course of business. Different sums of money were paid to the plaintiff as detailed in para. 4 of the plaint on various dates totaling 22,103.80. Thus, a sum of Rs. 23,119.50 remained unpaid in spite of a notice dated 27-4-1982. Interest at the rate of Rs. 20% per annum was also payable. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff carried on the business of supply of coal but denied the transaction in suit valuing Rs. 45,223.30. The value of the whatever goods (coal) was supplied to the defendant was paid. No amount was due and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

2. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues, taking evidence, hearing the parties and considering the material on record partly decreed the suit for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11.765.52 with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from 27-4-1982 till realisation. Hence, the defendant has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has neither filed any cross-appeal nor cross-objection with respect to the claim negatived by the learned trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below committed an error in decreeing the suit. He urged that it has not been proved from the material on record that any coal was supplied to the defendant/appellant. The documents filed have not been proved according to law. The account books have not been filed and only balance sheet has been filed. In absence of the cash book no reliance can be placed on the balance sheet. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no specific denial of the plaintiff's case and as such the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to prove its case. The learned trial Court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. The technicalities of law regarding the proof or disproof of a document cannot be said to be sufficient to discard the plaintiff's case. The Courts have to take into consideration preponderance of evidence.

4. A perusal of the plaint allegation shows that in para. 3 of the plaint the plaintiff has made allegations with respect to the supply of coal on various dates through various bill numbers mentioned therein. It is "important to be mentioned here that the plaintiff also alleged to have supplied crompton motor in this bill and his claim in this regard has been negatived by the learned trial Court and that finding has not been challenged. Hence, we are concerned only with the claim of alleged supply of coal. In para. 3 of the written statement of the defendant it is specifically said that the averments made in para. 3 of the plaint were incorrect and were not admitted. Not only this it has also been specifically mentioned that the fact that the coal was supplied on the dates mentioned therein of the value of Rs. 45, 223.30 on credit was wrong. If any amount was mentioned by the plaintiff to be due from the defendant it was incorrect. In face of this averment I am at a loss to understand as to how it can be contended that there is no specific denial. The defendant has in unequivocal terms denied the averments made in para. 3 of the plaint with respect to the supply of coal. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the supply by cogent and convincing ev