Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Though Issue regarding lack of cause of action and of Respondent/Plaintiff being guilty of committing breach of Agreement in question were framed, but the Issue regarding the entitlement of the Respondent/Plaintiff to recover the suit amount was the one on which both the sides had addressed arguments in this appeal.

6. Impugned judgment/decree of 25th August, 2009 decreeing the suit of the Appellant on the strength of Challan/Invoices (Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/13) is assailed by learned counsel for the Appellant by contending that the Statement of Account (Ex.PW-1/19) which is the basis of the Respondent's suit is a denied document and is inadmissible R.F.A. No.396/2009 Page 2 in evidence as the entries therein have not been certified as per Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891. It is pointed out by appellant's counsel that no books of accounts were ever produced in evidence and thus the very basis of the Respondent's suit gets knock down. Reliance was placed by Appellant's counsel upon decisions in Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995 (34) DRJ 86; Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through legal heirs vs. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs, AIR 2000 SC 426; L.K.Advani & Ors vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 66(1997) DLT 618; and Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain, 2009 II AD (Del) 30, to contend that the extract of some accounts (Ex.PW-1/19) is inadmissible in evidence.