JODH SINGH Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he declined a prayer of the defendant-petitioner for production of the account-books of the firm of M/s Parkash Chand Krishan Kumar pertaining to the account of one Ram Chand.

(2.) Krishan Kumar plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of money against the petitioner. The claim is based on a promissory note. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 15000/- in cash on 5.12.1982 and executed the promissory note and the receipt in his favour. The plea in defence by the petitioner in the written statement is that he never borrowed any money nor executed the pronote. He asserted that his uncle Ram Chand as Karta of the family had dealings with the firm M/s Parkash Chand Krishan Kumar of Malaudh, through whom he used to sell agricultural produce. Since his uncle stopped dealings with the said firm, the instant suit has been filed which is a false one. A prayer was made through an application by the petitioner for production of account books of the firm Parkash Chand Krishan Kumar containing the account of his uncle Ram Chand for the purposes of appreciation of evidence of the parties.

(3.) In my view the application has been rightly declined by the learned trial Court. The order does not suffer from any error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Ram Chand, uncle of the petitioner, is in no way connected with the promissory pronote on the strength of which the instant suit has been filed. All that is to be adjudicated upon is whether the promissory pronote and the receipt had been executed by the petitioner. If due execution of the pronote and the receipt is proved, the onus shall be on the petitioner to show that the amount of Rs. 15000/- mentioned therein was never paid to him. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the application is aimed at making a fishing enquiry and the account of Ram Chand in the account books of the firm of which the respondent is a partner is not relevant for the adjudication of the subject matter of the suit.