JUDGEMENT (Punjab-Haryana High Court Amrik Singh vs M/S Hind Iron Store on 20 September, 2011)

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amrik Singh vs M/S Hind Iron Store on 20 September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2592 of 2010 (O&M)           Date of decision : 20.9.2011

                             …

Amrik Singh                            …………….Appellant

                              vs.

M/s Hind Iron Store                  ……………..Respondent

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the case file.

The sole controversy in the present lis revolves around the receipt of 250 bags of cement by defendant-appellant and issuance of receipt by the defendant. To prove the said fact, plaintiff has appeared as his own witness and he also examined hand writing expert. The bill Exhibit P-1 alongwith entries in the accounts book Exhibits P-3 and P-4 have been placed on the file. Besides this, notice Exhibit P-5, postal receipt Exhibit P-6 and acknowledgment Exhibit P-7 have been placed on the file. In rebuttal, the defendant-appellant has suffered a self serving statement and has not led any evidence. Both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has been able to prove that 250 bags of cement were supplied to the defendant under the bill Exhibit P-1, which was acknowledged vide receipt Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff has also proved the said fact by proving the account books. The legal notice was served upon the defendant, which was duly received as per acknowledgment Exhibit P-7. No reply has been sent. So, in these circumstances, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the receipt Exhibit P-2 and supplying the bags of cement does not call for any interference. The appellant has simply challenged the factual aspect in the regular second appeal and that cannot be allowed in view of Section 100 CPC. Both the Courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the case argued before them. There is nothing on the file that judgments of both the Courts below is a result of mis- reading and mis-interpreting of evidence on the file.

In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant stands determined against him.

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top