IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 RSA-2660-2013(O&M)

Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Harminder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s Pritam Singh & Sons ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.9,55,152.51/- i.e. Rs.7,11,739.51 paise on account of principal amount and Rs.2,43,413/- on account of interest, has been decreed in part by the learned trial court; and in totality by the learned First Appellate Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant vehemently submits that in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court has grossly misread the evidence on record. It is submitted that suit of the plaintiff would not have been decreed as the plaintiff has failed to tender into evidence any document or any Account Book to show that there were any outstandings against the appellant. It is contended that the Courts below have also misread the evidence of PW2 and PW4 in decreeing the suit.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Id. Lower appellate court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff did not examine Avtar Singh accountant to prove the entries made by him whereas the said Avtar Singh accountant was still working with the plaintiff firm, so the entries made by him cannot be relied upon and are not proved. Moreover, the Id. Lower court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had made additions and alterations, changed the entries by adding digits to these. 4. Learned counsel accordingly prays for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently controverts the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and refers to the record, as also the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in comprehensive detail to submit that suit of the plaintiff has been decreed only after thorough and complete examination of all the evidence on record. It is submitted that the plaintiff had duly placed on record his Ledger Book along with the entries made therein on the basis of which suit of the plaintiff for recovery was decreed. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

7. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. 8. The plaintiff had filed suit with the averments that the defendant has been dealing with the plaintiff as he used to sell his crops through the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff firm is maintaining its Account Books at Samana as well as Gajewas. The defendant is running account with the plaintiff firm and used to take advances in his Khata maintained in the Account Books of the plaintiff. In 2001-02, amount of Rs.5,61,040.39/- paise was brought forward as the said amount was due from defendant at the closing of previous year. Following amounts were advanced to defendant in his Khata i.e. Rs.3,000/- on 30.04.2001; Rs.5,000/- on 04.05.2001; Rs.2,60,000/- was received by the defendant from plaintiff against entry recorded at page No.26 duly signed by plaintiff. During 2001-02, wheat crops of Rs.1,17,300.80/- was sold by defendant through plaintiff at Purchase Centre, Gajewas which was duly credited in the account of the defendant. After adjusting the said amount, Rs.7,11,739.51/- remained outstanding against the defendant which he failed to pay. After settling the account in 1998-99, an amount of Rs.5,82,000/- was received as advance by the defendant on 23.10.1998, which was brought forward in next year i.e. 1999- 2000. Various other entries