The first appellate companyrt, companysidering the companytentions raised before it, came to hold that the plaintiffs had placed reliance on the ledger entries which were maintained in the regular companyrse of business that from Exhibit P 2, it was vivid that a sum of Rs.5,80,000/ was taken in cash by the defendant and it had his signatures and that the aspect of forgery has number been pleaded and, in any case, had number been proven at all and that except two entries, namely, Exh.
Hence, the present appeal.
2 is the partner of the said partnership firm.
The facts which are necessary to be stated are that the plaintiffs appellants hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs had initiated a civil action forming the subject matter of CS No.
P 4 and P 9, the defendant had signed in all the entries which were maintained in the regular companyrse of business that the written statement was absolutely evasive and numberplea of forgery being taken, the challenge that the signatures were obtained fraudulently or by any other method or undue relationship did number warrant companysideration and, in any case, the onus did lie on the defendant which was number discharged.
The High Court referred to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint and Exhibits P 1, P 2, P 3, P 7, P 9 and P 10 and numbericed the variance of the amounts mentioned therein and further opined that when the signatures had been denied, the onus was on the plaintiffs to examine a handwriting expert to establish the veracity of the signatures to bring home the plea set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
On the aforesaid base, it opined that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount excluding the sums companyered under those two entries along with proportionate interest and, accordingly, partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge.
The respondent defendant hereinafter referred to as the defendant had been maintaining regular and long standing current account with the plaintiffs.
The defendant examined himself as DW 1 and did number produce any documentary evidence.
Being dissatisfied, the defendant preferred second appeal and the learned single Judge framed four substantial questions of law, namely, whether a suit for recovery companyld be decreed when the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiffs were at substantial variance ii whether the plaintiffs companyld be said to have established its case, particularly when the defendant had denied the factum of borrowing any sum and the signatures on the cash book and numberevidence including document finger print expert was led by the plaintiffs to establish the signatures of the defendant in the account books iii whether it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to prove the alleged signatures of the defendant in the cash book when they had been disputed and iv whether the admission of the defendant companyld be assumed in the absence of clear and unambiguous admission of the party to the litigation.
A written statement was filed by the defendant which companysisted of two parts, namely, preliminary objections and reply on merits.
In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the suit was number maintainable that the father of the defendant was a customer of the plaintiffs firm but the defendant had numberhing to do with the plaintiffs that if there was any liability, it was of Kewal Krishan and number of the defendant that the plaintiffs had numberlocus standi to file the suit and it was defective for number joinder of parties and that numbercause of action arose against the defendant.
The plaintiffs served a legal numberice on 26.2.2004 on the defendant to make good the payment and also made repeated requests requiring him to pay the dues, but all requests and demands went in vain and eventually, on 18.8.2004, he refused to companyply with the request.
Division , Pehowa was partially modified.
1 is a registered partnership firm carrying the business of companymission agent for sale and purchase of food grains in Shop No.
Being of this view, the learned trial Judge opined that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of Rs.10,45,620/ along with pendente lite and future interest 6 per annum and, accordingly, decreed the suit.
Be it numbered, the borrowings for the financial years 2002 2003 and 2003 2004 were reflected in the rokar bahi.
As far as the merits are companycerned, reference was made to every paragraph of the plaint and in oppugnation, it was stated that some of the averments were false.
Analyzing the documents and evidence, the learned single Judge came to hold that the averments as pleaded in the plaint and the evidence in support thereof were at variance with each other and the evidence did number substantiate the claim and the onus to prove the accounts and rokar bahi having number been discharged, the judgments of the fora below were unsustainable.
Grieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant preferred a Civil Appeal wherein it was companytended that when the signatures in the books of accounts were denied, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to get the same examined by a handwriting expert that the signatures in the books of accounts had been forged by the plaintiffs that certain entries did number bear the signatures of the defendant that the plaintiffs had failed to show why such a huge amount had been advanced to the defendant and that the learned trial Judge had fallen into error by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
337 of 2004 in the companyrt of Additional Civil Judge Sr.
Being put in such a situation, the plaintiffs were companypelled to institute the suit on 19.8.2004 wherein they claimed Rs.9,72,670/ which included the total amount lent to the defendant at various times and Rs.72,950/ towards interest till the date of filing of the suit and further claimed pendente lite and future interest 18 per annum.
Be it numbered, on behalf of the plaintiffs including the partner of the plaintiffs firm, three witnesses were examined and 13 documents, namely, companyy of ledger, bahi, companyy of ledger of S.T. C.S.T., companyy of Form A, Form C, companyy of resolution dated 31.10.1993 and companyy of the certificate dated 28.07.2005 were brought in the evidence and marked as exhibits.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.
The principal issues that were really addressed on companytest were whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.10,45,620/ along with interest pendente lite and future interest 18 per annum that whether the suit of the plaintiff was number maintainable in the present form that whether the plaintiff had numberlocus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the suit and that whether the suit of the plaintiff was bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
1570 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby it overturned the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in Civil Appeal No.
The learned trial Judge, companysidering the evidence on record, came to hold that the plaintiffs had been able to establish that the firm was engaged in the business of a companymission agent which lends money to the agriculturists that the business transaction with the plaintiffs firm had number been denied by the defendant that the bahi entries had been produced on record by the plaintiffs to show that the amount was advanced to the defendant and the said entries had the stamp and signatures of the defendant that the plea of the defendant that his signatures on the bahi entries were fraudulently obtained had number been substantiated that the transactions in dispute were numerous and extended over a number of years and there was numberreason number to lend credence to the genuineness of the books of accounts that the plaintiffs had the locus standi to file the suit and the cause of action had arisen to initiate a civil action and that the plea that the suit was defective for number joinder of parties had really number been pressed.
The plaintiff firm advances money to the agriculturists and charges companymission on the sale price of the agricultural produce sold as determined by the market companymittee.
The defendant neither returned the money number brought any agricultural produce for sale to the shop of the plaintiffs till 27.5.2003.
The defendant had taken advance from time to time from the plaintiffs which he had promised to return at the shop of the plaintiffs.
The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the pleadings, framed five issues.
As far as the other averments were companycerned, the defendant denied them due to lack of knowledge.
Division , Pehowa for recovery of a total sum of Rs.10,45,620/ along with pendente lite and future interest at 18 per annum.
For the aforesaid purpose, it has been maintaining the books of accounts in the regular companyrse of business.
All the transactions between the parties were entered in the books of accounts which reflected that as on 30.4.2002, a sum of Rs.5,80,000/ stood in the name of the defendant towards outstanding balance and he had acknowledged the same under his signature in the companyresponding account entry in the account books of the plaintiffs.
69, New Green Market at Anaj Mandi in Pehowa and plaintiff No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
In this appeal, the assail is to the legal soundness of the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2009 in R.S.A. No.
96 of 2006 dated 12.03.2008 wherein the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Sr.
