IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 RSA-3978-2015(O&M)

Anguri ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Subhram ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, for recovery of Rs.85,000/- (Rs.50,000/- as principal amount and Rs.35,000/- as interest thereupon), has been decreed by the learned Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant”

and the respondent as the “plaintiff”.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed as the original writing/Original Bahi was not brought on record by the plaintiff. It is SUNENA

2025.04.23 15:18 contended that as per Order 7 Rule 17 CPC, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to attach the Original Bahi with the plaint. However, the plaintiffs have produced only the coloured photocopy of one page of the Bahi as Ex.PB. This has been admitted by the attesting witness/PW3 in his cross- examination that the original Bahi was not produced. Even from a careful examination of the cross-examination of Handwriting Expert (PW1), respondent/plaintiff (PW2) and Bhan Singh (PW3), it is established beyond doubt that the said Bahi entry was not original but was the coloured photocopy. It is submitted that accordingly, the impugned judgments and decrees have been passed on an incorrect premise by relying upon Bahi entry which was not admissible in evidence being a coloured photocopy. As such, finding of the learned Courts below to the effect that thumb impression of the defendant on the said Bahi entry matched with the thumb impression of the appellant in the written statement is totally perverse. It is contended that as the thumb impression of the defendant was got compared through Handwriting Expert from a photocopy of one page of the Bahi, could not have been relied upon as it was not in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, ld. counsel has relied upon judgment of this Court in “Randhir Singh Vs. Ram Kumar” Law Finder Doc ID # 663007, wherein it is held that:-

“B. Evidence Act, 1872 Section 34 Civil Procedure Code, Order 7, Rule 17 – Money suit based on bahi entries – Plaintiff not producing bahi at the time of filing plaint – No evidence that SUNENA

2025.04.23 15:18 plaintiff kept bahi in ordinary course of business – Bahi entry not attested by any independent witness – Suit dismissed.”

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the contention of the appellant is based on a misreading of Order 7 Rule 17 CPC. It is submitted that it is only after examining the documents produced by the plaintiff that the learned trial Court has permitted the same to be exhibited; otherwise, the said documents would have been marked and would not have been permitted to be exhibited by the learned trial Court. It is further pointed out that no such objection was taken by the appellant at any stage before the learned Courts below and it is only before this Court that it has been sought to be stated by the defendant that Bahi entry is not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that Register could not have been produced by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not a regular money lender and does not maintain a Register. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail and given by thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties.

7. I find no merit