Short Note : 1. The applicant had filed the suit for the price of silver ornaments supplied to the non-applicant on credit. It was alleged that on 11-5-72, the non-applicant purchased silver Kadi and Kandora on credit for a sum of Rs. 702 and paid a sum of Rs. 100 on the same day. He, however, failed to make the payment of the balance of Rs. 603 inspite of demand. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for Rs. 780 inclusive of interest and notice charges. The non-applicant denied the suit transaction. He also denied that he paid a sum of Rs. 100 to the applicant as payment of the price of silver ornaments. The parties examined themselves and closed their cases. The trial Court dismissed the suit merely on the ground that the applicant held suppressed the bill book in which the entry with respect to the sale transaction was made at the time of the alleged transaction. The applicant has, therefore, come to this Court in revision. Held : The non-applicant inspite of service of the notice of this application remained absent. I halve, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. To my mind, this revision must be allowed. The judgment of the trial Court appears to be perverse. The applicant in his statement has deposed that the non-applicant had purchased silver ornaments from his shop on 11-5-73 valued at Rs. 703 and had paid Rs. 100 towards the part payment of the sale price. The applicant produced the entry from rokad at Ex. P-1. The entry from the Nakal bahi was also produced at Ex. P-1. The applicant has stated that he maintains regular account books. The applicant was not cross-examined on this point. The trial Court also held that the applicant had kept the account books regularly in regular course of business. The applicant in his cross-examination had stated that he used to keep Bill book. He also stated that initially the transaction is entered into the Bill book and the copy of it is supplied to the customer and then it is passed in the rokad. The trial Court was of the view that the applicant having with-held the Bill book his solitary testimony could not be relied on to prove the suit transaction. The said approach of the Court below is erroneous. The trial Court was of the view that the applicant having with-held the Bill book his solitary testimony could not be relied on to prove the suit transaction. The said approach of the Court below is erroneous. The applicant had based the suit on the rodak entry. As the accounts were kept by the applicant in regular course of business the entries from the account books were admissible in evidence. Thus the testimony of the applicant was corroborated by the entries in the account books. In case the non-applicant wanted to test the veracity of the applicant he could have called upon the applicant to produce the Bill book. In Messrs. Bihar Agents Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1960 Patna, 111, it was held that it was for the suitor to decide which would be the best evidence to prove his case, and, for failure to produce one piece of evidence, an adverse inference could not be drawn against the party who had chosen not to file it, unless the other side had called for that evidence. 2. In Kokaram Sohanlal v. Firm Thakur Das Mathra Das, AIR 1962 Punjab 27, it was held that where the plaintiff had made a definite statement that the account books are regular and he was not cross-examined with regard to the genuineness of the account books, the plaintiff's own statement on oath in support of the entries is sufficient to fix the defendants with liability. 3. In the instant case apart from the oath against oath, the applicants testimony is corroborated by the account books kept regularly. Moreover before filing the suit the applicant had served the defendant with a notice, the Postal acknowledgment of which is at Ex. P-3. The non-applicant did not give any reply to the said notice. Thus, omission on the part of the non-applicant to controvert the allegations made in the notice which was given by the applicant would further support the case of the applicant. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant has fully proved the suit transaction and the outstanding amount due against the non-applicant. Suit decreed. Revision allowed.