High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Angrej Singh v. M/s Sukhcharan Singh Major Singh, Commis - RSA-6-2007  RD-P&H 849 (24 January 2007)
CM No.32-C of 2007 and
RSA NO.6 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: January 8, 2007
M/s Sukhcharan Singh Major Singh, Commission Agents ....
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri H.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.
The defendant is appellant before this Court.
A suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,76,188/- filed by the plaintiff firm was partly decreed by the trial Court for an amount of Rs.55,972/-. However, appeal was filed by the plaintiff firm claiming that suit was to be decreed as a whole. The First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the Bahi entries on the basis of which the plaintiff firm had filed a suit in question were duly proved and the aforesaid account books had been maintained by the plaintiff firm in the regular course of business. It was found that on an one occasion, the plaintiff firm had accepted the accounts and had settled the same. Thereafter, there were certain further transactions. The objection raised by the defendant that the settlement did not bear his signatures had been rejected by the First
CM No.32-C of 2007 and
Appellate Court by holding that the aforesaid Bahi entry and the account maintained by the plaintiff firm were duly proved. Various other objections raised by the defendant with regard to insufficiency of stamp on the said entry etc. were also rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff firm was partly allowed for an amount of Rs.1,03,640/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based upon misreading of evidence. However, no such evidence has been brought to my notice which would support the aforesaid contention. Various other arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant are mere pleas with regard to appreciation of evidence.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No substantial question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
January 8, 2007 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.