JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the learned trial Court for recovery of rupees 11,765.52 with 12% interest per annum. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,929.48. The parties are private limited companies. The defendant authorised the plaintiff to purchase coal for them from M. P. Coalfield and other parties. The plaintiff supplied coal from 30-4-1980 to 31-1-1981 as detailed in para. 3 of the plaint of the value of Rs. 40,310.78. A sum of Rs. 4,590/- towards truck charges and Rs. 322.51 towards other expenses were also payable. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,223.30 was payable. An entry was made in the account books which were maintained in the ordinary course of business. Different sums of money were paid to the plaintiff as detailed in para. 4 of the plaint on various dates totaling 22,103.80. Thus, a sum of Rs. 23,119.50 remained unpaid in spite of a notice dated 27-4-1982. Interest at the rate of Rs. 20% per annum was also payable. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff carried on the business of supply of coal but denied the transaction in suit valuing Rs. 45,223.30. The value of the whatever goods (coal) was supplied to the defendant was paid. No amount was due and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 2. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues, taking evidence, hearing the parties and considering the material on record partly decreed the suit for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11.765.52 with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from 27-4-1982 till realisation. Hence, the defendant has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has neither filed any cross-appeal nor cross-objection with respect to the claim negatived by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below committed an error in decreeing the suit. He urged that it has not been proved from the material on record that any coal was supplied to the defendant/appellant. The documents filed have not been proved according to law. The account books have not been filed and only balance sheet has been filed. In absence of the cash book no reliance can be placed on the balance sheet. He urged that it has not been proved from the material on record that any coal was supplied to the defendant/appellant. The documents filed have not been proved according to law. The account books have not been filed and only balance sheet has been filed. In absence of the cash book no reliance can be placed on the balance sheet. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no specific denial of the plaintiff's case and as such the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to prove its case. The learned trial Court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. The technicalities of law regarding the proof or disproof of a document cannot be said to be sufficient to discard the plaintiff's case. The Courts have to take into consideration preponderance of evidence. 4. A perusal of the plaint allegation shows that in para. 3 of the plaint the plaintiff has made allegations with respect to the supply of coal on various dates through various bill numbers mentioned therein. It is "important to be mentioned here that the plaintiff also alleged to have supplied crompton motor in this bill and his claim in this regard has been negatived by the learned trial Court and that finding has not been challenged. Hence, we are concerned only with the claim of alleged supply of coal. In para. 3 of the written statement of the defendant it is specifically said that the averments made in para. 3 of the plaint were incorrect and were not admitted. Not only this it has also been specifically mentioned that the fact that the coal was supplied on the dates mentioned therein of the value of Rs. 45, 223.30 on credit was wrong. If any amount was mentioned by the plaintiff to be due from the defendant it was incorrect. In face of this averment I am at a loss to understand as to how it can be contended that there is no specific denial. The defendant has in unequivocal terms denied the averments made in para. 3 of the plaint with respect to the supply of coal. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the supply by cogent and convincing evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed unless it proves its case. It cannot bank upon the weakness of the defendant, if any. 3 of the plaint with respect to the supply of coal. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the supply by cogent and convincing evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed unless it proves its case. It cannot bank upon the weakness of the defendant, if any. The entire case of the plaintiff has been based upon certain bills mentioned in para. 3 of the plaint. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove its case consists of the bills and the statement of P.W. 1. At this stage it is important to mention the law relating to the proof of document or signature. Sections 47 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act are relevant in this connection. Section 47 makes a provision with regard to the opinion as to handwriting. Under this section provision has been made as to how a document which is alleged to have been written or signed by particular person can be proved. Under this section any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, can prove that it was or was not signed by that person. An explanation has been appended to this section which is very important. It reads as follows :- "Explanation. - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him." Section 67 also makes a provision for the proof of signature and handwriting of a person alleged to have signed or written the document produced. The law requires that a document or signature can be proved by calling a person who signed or wrote the document or by calling a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of a person who is alleged to have signed or written the document. The law requires that a document or signature can be proved by calling a person who signed or wrote the document or by calling a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of a person who is alleged to have signed or written the document. A reading of Sections 47 and 67 together shows that reasonable inference is that the signature of the executor must be proved either by examining the person in whose presence the signature was affixed or writing executed or examining another person who is acquainted with the handwriting. Of course, a document or signature can also be proved by calling a handwriting expert but unless the requirement of law is fulfilled, a document cannot be said to have been proved. If a document is alleged to have been executed or signed by a particular person, it must be proved by a witness who has either seen it being executed or who is acquainted with the handwriting/signature of the writer within the meaning of the explanation appended to Section 47. If a person merely says that a particular document or a particular signature is of a particular person, it is not the compliance of law and cannot be said to be proper evidence of the fact required to be proved under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, unless requirement of law is fulfilled, the mere statement that the document is in the handwriting of a particular person is not sufficient proof under the law. At this stage it is also important to mention here that if a document is exhibited it by itself does not go to show that the requirement of law has been dispensed with. The Apex Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1865 specifically held that "Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of document." Thus, even if a document has been exhibited by the learned trial Court, it does not dispense with the proof. In order to rely upon a document it must be shown that the document has been proved in accordance with law. 5. In the background of the law mentioned above it has to be seen as to how far the plaintiff has been able to prove the documents filed in this case. In order to rely upon a document it must be shown that the document has been proved in accordance with law. 5. In the background of the law mentioned above it has to be seen as to how far the plaintiff has been able to prove the documents filed in this case. While considering this aspect it has to be kept in mind that the transaction in suit has been specifically denied by the defendant. Large number of papers have been filed by the plaintiff which have been exhibited by the learned trial Court. It will not be out of place to mention here that it is unfortunate that the subordinate Courts do not comply with the provisions of Order 13, Rule 4 onward which must be complied with. It is emphasized upon the subordinate Courts that the provisions of these rules are important and they must be complied with. In order to prove the documents filed by the plaintiff there is the statement of P.W. 1 Aniljeet Puri. A perusal of the statement of this witness clearly goes to show that he has not proved even a single document in accordance with law though the learned trial Court has exhibited the documents which is again very unfortunate. If we go through his statement, we find that in the narration given by him he referred the document and the learned trial Court mentioned it with exhibit number. There is nothing to show in his statement as to who wrote those documents and whether he was acquainted with his handwriting or whether those documents were written in his presence. As said above, the essential requirement of law is that the documents can be proved by producing the person who executed the document or by producing a person who is acquainted with the handwriting/signatures within the meaning of explanation appended to Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness has nowhere said in his examination-in-chief in this regard and the learned trial Court has exhibited the documents. As said above, the mere fact that the document has been exhibited cannot be said that the proof has been dispensed with. 6. In this view of the matter not a single document on record has been proved in accordance with law. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondent to the three documents on record i.e. Ex. P/32, Ex. 6. In this view of the matter not a single document on record has been proved in accordance with law. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondent to the three documents on record i.e. Ex. P/32, Ex. P/34 and Ex. P/35. He contended that these documents go to show that the coal in question was received by one Shri Banerjee who was the employee of the defendant. Reference has been made to the statement of P.W. 1 in this connection where he stated that over Ex. P/33, Ex. P/34 and Ex. P/35 there were signatures of the employee of the defendant Shri Banerjee. He has nowhere stated that he was acquainted with his signatures within the meaning of the explanation appended to Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel urged that technicalities of law should not be gone into. I respectfully find myself unable to agree with the learned counsel. If a provision has been made in law, it has been made so that it may be followed. The provision is never made to be ignored. The law makes a provision as to how a document is to be proved under the law. If evidence has not been adduced in accordance with law, the document cannot be said to be proved. This witness has not said that these documents were signed by Shri Banerjee before him or he was acquainted with his signatures. Thus, I am of the view that it has not been proved at all that the documents bore the signature of Banerjee. Not only this there is also nothing to show as to how the witness knew that Banerjee was the employee of the defendant. The defendant's witness D.W. 1 Shailendra Kumar specifically stated in para. 7 of his statement that there was no employee as Banerjee in his establishment. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the statement of this witness where he stated that if any person as Banerjee was an employee before him, he could not say. This will not help the plaintiff because the plaintiff has to establish as a fact that the coal in question was supplied to the defendant by cogent and convincing evidence. The learned trial Court while discussing the issue No. 2 made an observation to the effect that "Delivery challan (Ex. P/31), Issue slip (Ex. P/32) and motor transport receipt (Ex. This will not help the plaintiff because the plaintiff has to establish as a fact that the coal in question was supplied to the defendant by cogent and convincing evidence. The learned trial Court while discussing the issue No. 2 made an observation to the effect that "Delivery challan (Ex. P/31), Issue slip (Ex. P/32) and motor transport receipt (Ex. P/34 to Ex. P/35) have been produced by the plaintiff and the same have been signed by the employee of the defendant Shri Banerjee." On the basis of this observation it concluded that the supply of coal has been proved. The learned trial Court completely ignored the fact that the plaintiff has not been able to prove by cogent and convincing evidence firstly that Shri Banerjee was an employee of the defendant and secondly the documents bore the signatures of Shri Banerjee in accordance with law. I have already said above that none of the documents filed by the plaintiff has been proved in accordance with law. P.W. 1 stated in his cross-examination that the defendant did not give any written order. He also stated that he had no knowledge that there was any agreement with the defendant on the basis of "Adhikar Patra" for the supply of goods. Again he stated that he could not say as to whether the defendant had authorised the plaintiff to send goods through Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/28. Thus, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove by convincing and cogent evidence that the coal in question was supplied to the defendant. 7. I may mention that beside the above observation there is nothing in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to show as to how it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved supply of coal to the defendant. Thus, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff supplied the coal to the defendant cannot be allowed to stand. The appeal must, therefore, succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court decreeing the claim against the appellant is set aside with costs, throughout.