Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Barinder Kumar Raj Kumar Commission ... vs Jagir Singh on 12 March, 2015
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3359 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 12, 2015
M/s Barinder Kumar Raj Kumar Commission Agent and another
...Appellants
Versus
Jagir Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Rozer Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Appellants M/s Barinder Kumar Raj Kumar Commission Agent through its proprietor and Barinder Kumar Proprietor have filed this regular second appeal against Jagir Singh respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide which the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed and judgment dated 05.02.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide which appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the borrowed amount has been admitted by the defendant-respondent. The defendant admitted his signatures on documents Ex.P1 and P2, which are cash vouchers. He argued that Ex.D1 being photocopy and VINEET GULATI 2015.04.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3359 of 2014 -2- secondary evidence, has not been got allowed and cannot be read into evidence and lower Courts have misread the evidence.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for recovery of `4,03,643/- including interest on the ground that plaintiff firm is doing the business of Commission agent at Grain Market Rajpura Town. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant- respondent Jagir Singh used to borrow amount from their shop for up- liftment of his crops. The borrowed amount was to be adjusted in the agriculture produce to be brought by the defendant at their shop for sale. It is also the case that it was orally agreed by the defendant that in case of default of bringing the crops or if the sale price of the agriculture produce was of lesser value than the borrowed amount, then the interest @ 1.5% per month shall be paid by the defendant to them. It is also the case that defendant executed a cash voucher of `2,27,500/- in plaintiffs' favour which is duly signed by the defendant. Further, on 05.05.2005, the defendant borrowed a sum of `1 lac in consideration thereof and executed a cash voucher in favour of plaintiff firm, which is also duly signed by the defendant. The said cash voucher, computerized khata and cash book are maintained by plaintiffs in the ordinary and usual course of business.
On the other hand, the case of the defendant before the lower Court as stated in the written statement is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as alleged. The defendant VINEET GULATI 2015.04.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3359 of 2014 -3- used to sell his crops with the plaintiff up till October 2005. The plaintiff used to issue receipt thereof till end of October 2005 to the defendant. When the defendant stopped selling his crops at the shop of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant settled their accounts on 30.10.2005 in the presence of Baldev Singh and Bhupinder Singh and at that time a sum of `50,000/- became due outstanding against the plaintiff and thereafter a writing was executed to this effect which was signed by Barinder Kumar, proprietor and the defendant and Baldev Singh also put their signatures as witnesses to this writing. Plaintiffs examined Barinder Kumar, proprietor as PW-1 and closed the evidence after tendering into certain documents. On the other hand, defendant examined DW-1 Baldev Singh and himself as DW-2 and closed his evidence.
The perusal of the record shows that there is no misreading of the evidence by the Courts below produced by the parties. The cash vouchers Ex.P1 and P2 are admitted to be signed by the defendant in his cross-examination, when defendant appeared as DW-2, though in the written statement he has denied his signature. I have perused these documents. As per Ex.P1, an amount of `2,27,500/- has been shown as balance. In this cash voucher, it is nowhere stated that the defendant has borrowed this amount as loan. Rather, the word balance shows that this amount was to be paid to the defendant as balance remained to be paid. Second voucher Ex.P2 also nowhere shows that the amount mentioned therein is a loan or the defendant has borrowed this amount. It is simply written VINEET GULATI 2015.04.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3359 of 2014 -4- the amount as cash. There is no ledger book produced on the record to show that any amount has been borrowed by the defendant- respondent from the plaintiffs-appellants nor there is any document except two cash vouchers showing the signatures of the defendant that he borrowed amount from the plaintiffs. The defendant has specifically denied that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiffs. The perusal of the plaint also shows that plaintiff firm is alleging that defendant, who is an agriculturalist, used to borrow amount from them for the up-liftment of his crops i.e. for purchase of pesticides, fertilizers, seeds, diesel and other requirements. The borrowed amount was to be adjusted in the agriculture produce to be brought by the defendant at the shop of the plaintiffs for sale. It is also stated in the plaint that `2,27,500/- was due outstanding against the defendant to the plaintiffs after adjusting the entire previous debit and credit entries. It is also stated that a sum of `1 lac was borrowed by the defendant on 05.05.2005 from the plaintiffs and he put his signatures on the cash voucher.
In view of the averments in the plaint, the case is that defendant used to borrow amount for purchase of pesticides, fertilizers etc. No particulars have been given as to on which date, month and year the defendant borrowed which amount from the plaintiff. It is simply stated that on 01.05.2005, amount of `2,27,500/- was outstanding against defendant. If this amount was outstanding against the defendant on 01.05.2005, it means that this amount was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Then why amount of cash VINEET GULATI 2015.04.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3359 of 2014 -5- voucher Ex.P1, has been paid to the defendant.
From the perusal of the record, I find that the plaintiffs failed to prove its case. As regarding Ex.D1, learned counsel for the appellants argued that this document cannot be looked into as permission for secondary evidence has not been taken from the Court and it is the photocopy. The appellant admits his signatures on this document. On one hand, learned counsel for the appellants argued that this document is inadmissible in evidence and at the same time, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this document should be looked into being admission of the defendant regarding borrowing of the loan amount. The perusal of Ex.D1 nowhere shows that this amount in dispute has been admitted by the defendant in any way. Rather, the perusal of the document shows that it is written that `50,000/- is to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Even if, for the sake of argument, this document Ex.D1 is ignored, even then the plaintiffs have not led any evidence to show that defendant has borrowed the amount in dispute from the plaintiffs.
In view of the above discussion, I find that Courts below have not misread the evidence. The judgments passed by the Courts below are correct, as per law and do not require any interference from this Court. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.
March 12, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2015.04.20 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh