ROSHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that defendant-appellants are liable to pay to the plaintiff-respondent specified amount along with interest. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.5.2001 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 64.000/- alongwith interest @ 12-1/2 per cent p.a. However, the aforementioned judgment and decree was modified by the Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa holding that the principal amount on the date of the institution of the Suit would be deemed to be Rs. 40,679/- and the defendant-appellants would lie liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the date of its realization. In support of the findings, both the Courts below have relied upon the entries in the bahi belonging to the plaintiff-respondent Ex.P3 to Ex.P15 and also extracts from the books of accounts Ex.P16 to Ex.P20. Reliance has also been placed on Form ST-15 issued by the defendant-appellants to the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the purchases made as witnessed in the accounts books. In addition sales tax Forms Ex.P21 to Ex.P24 were also relied upon which were said to have been issued by the defendant-appellants. Apart from the above referred overwhelming documentary evidence the statement of Amrit Lal PW1 who is partner in the plaintiff-respondent firm has been relied upon. Entries in the books of accounts Ex.P3 to Ex.P15 have been considered relevant under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') as the books of accounts are found to be maintained in regular course of business. It has also been pointed out that no partner of the defendant-appellants appeared before the Court to deny the liability or to explain the averments made in the written statement. In other words, the plaintiff-respondent has been deprived of establishing the veraciousness of the averments made in the written statement by conducting cross-examination on any of the partners defendant-appellants.

(2.) MRS . Anju Arora, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that merely because an entry has been made in the books of accounts it would not result into fastening of liability on a person. Learned counsel has made reference to Section 34 of the 1872 Act to contend that such an evidence may be relevant but it is not sufficient to hold that a party would become liable to pay. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandradhar Goswami and others v. Gaunati Bank Ltd., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1058 and argued that until and unless the liability has been accepted by conceding the correctness of the entries it is not possible to hold a person liable. Learned counsel has further argued that plaintiff-respondent was required to prove its case by adducing evidence instead of relying upon the weakness of the defendant- appellants. According to the learned counsel the ST Form-15 did not bear the signatures of any of the partners of the defendant-appellant firm.

(3.) THE judgment of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed does not help the defendant-appellants because in that case liability was sought to be fastened on the basis of mere entry in the books of account and no proof of making the payment was furnished. Bankers Books' Evidence Act, 1981 was cited that in the absence of proof of payment of the money with respect to which entry has been made in the books of accounts the liability on a person cannot be fastened. In the present case, firstly there is no advancement of loan by the bank to another party. The facts reveal that parties have business transaction with each other. Moreover, the entries made in the books on account have been sufficiently supported by the evidence of ST form which could not be forged or procured. It is further significant to mention that no partner of defendant-appellants bad appeared as a witness to support the claim made in the written statement. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Courts below. No question of law has been raised nor the one has arisen which may warrant admission of the appeal. For the reasons retarded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.