Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kailash Chand vs M/S Mangaliawala Traders on 3 January, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No.: R.S.A.No.3 of 2012 Date of Decision : 03.01.2012
Kailash Chand …. Appellant
Vs.
M/s Mangaliawala Traders …. Respondent
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
Plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and examined Handwriting Expert Anil Kumar Gupta as PW-2 and also examined plaintiff’s Accountant Ram Niwas as PW-4. Plaintiff and Ram Niwas broadly stated according to the plaint allegations. Anil Kumar Gupta – handwriting expert reported that the disputed bahi entries bear signatures of the defendant.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to accept the same. Plaintiff has led cogent and sufficient evidence to prove its case. The plaintiff’s Proprietor himself appeared in the witness-box and examined his Accountant, who had authored the disputed bahi entries. Both of them have proved the said bahi entries bearing signatures of the defendant and also proved advancement of different amounts, as pleaded in the plaint. Their statements are also corroborated by handwriting expert Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-2). On the other hand, there is self serving oral statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s cogent evidence.