M/S Master Bhatti & Sons v. Daljit Singh

RSA No.1949 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1949 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.11.2018 M/s Master Bhatti & Sons Commission agents ...Appellant Vs Daljit Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.5188-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 58 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.1949 of 2016 The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in laying claim for recovery of `9,07,437/- including principal amount of `8,85,000/- and `22,437/- as interest @1% per month from 24.03.2009 to 15.05.2009 on the basis of signature/thumb impression of the defendants on bahi entries.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that signature/thumb impression of defendant had been proved through the testimony of PW4, handwriting expert, which has gone unrebutted. In these circumstances, suit was liable to be decreed. I am aforesaid argument is not sustainable, in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.1949 of 2016 (O&M) -2under:- "34. Entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic form when relevant.- Entries in books of accounts including those maintained in an electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."

Except aforementioned statement, no other documentary evidence placed on record to establish the advancement of loan. In the absence of the same, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 21, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document