M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashThis 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 woufd be deemed to be Rs. 40,679/- and the defendant-appellants would be 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 u/s 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
3. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed because over-whelming evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff-respondent to show that defendant-appellants were liable to pay to the plaintiff-respondent a sum of Rs. 34,867/- as the same was due to it. Evidence in the form of ST-15 issued by the defendant-appellants duly support the entries made in the account books. It is true that Harish Chander, DW1 had deposed that the signatures on ST form do not belong to the defendant-appellants but it is equally true that Harish Chander DW1 was neither a partner in the firm nor he was expected to be acquainted with the signatures of all the partners. No partner of the firm has appeared in the witness box and defendant-appellants had appeared to depose about the signatures. It is significant to point out that seal on the sales tax form was admitted by Harish Chander DW1 to be that of the defendant-appellant firm. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal which deserved to be dismissed.
4. 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 had 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 recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
