JUDGMENT This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.1989 in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/1980 by Additional District Judge, Manendragarh District Surguja affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1986 in Civil Suit No. 19-B/1984 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Manendragarh, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- was decreed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant/appellant. Averment of the plaintiff/respondent was that the defendant/appellant used to purchase cloth on credit from his shop and used to deposit, from time to time, the part price of the cloth purchased from him. Entries in his Khata were made by the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/appellant did not pay the price of cloth purchased by him, detailed as below : Date of purchase Amount 9.6.1977 Rs. 4,559=08 14.7.1977 Rs. 2,660=12 31.8.1977 Rs. 3,731=27 TOTAL Rs. 10,950=47 The plaintiff/respondent sent a notice to the appellant/defendant for payment of the above amount. The amount was, however, not paid. Hence the recovery of suit for Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant before the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Manendragarh, District Surguja. The defendant/appellant resisted the suit. He denied that he ever purchased any cloth on credit from the plaintiff/respondent. He denied that any amount towards price of cloth purchased by the defendant was outstanding. Both the Courts below held concurrently that the defendant/appellant used to purchase cloth on credit from the plaintiff/respondent and that an amount of Rs. 10,950=47 p. was outstanding as against the defendant. The claim of Rs. 10,000/- towards the said amount was, therefore, decreed. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are according to law?" The learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal has mainly urged that it has not been established by satisfactory evidence that the defendant/appellant used to purchase cloth on credit or an amount of Rs. 10,950=47 p. was outstanding against him. It may be noted in the above context that the learned lower appellate Court has pointed out that even according to the Khata entry of the appellant produced before the Income Tax Officer, an amount of Rs. 10,950=47 p. was outstanding against him. It may be noted in the above context that the learned lower appellate Court has pointed out that even according to the Khata entry of the appellant produced before the Income Tax Officer, an amount of Rs. 7,219=21 p. was shown as outstanding, which indicates that there were dealings between the parties regarding the purchase of cloth on credit as was the case of the plaintiff/respondent. It appears that the plaintiff/respondent, by production of relevant bills and the Khata entries of his shop, has established that the defendant/appellant used to purchase cloth on credit from the plaintiff and that the amount as claimed by him was outstanding regarding bills dated 9.6.1977, 14.7.1977 and 21.7.1977. The defendant though has denied any dealings with the plaintiff/respondent, but letter (Ex. P/14) written by the appellant would clearly negative his own contention, by which he has impliedly admitted that there was outstanding liability but he claims that the liability has been set off by the commission of Sall seeds which the defendant/appellant had to recover from the plaintiff/respondent. There is yet another letter (Ex. P/11) written by the appellant/defendant, which indicates that the claim of the plaintiff/respondent is genuine. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the suit by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable, as the relevant entries from the Registrar of Firms & Societies of the plaintiff firm were not produced in the trial Court. However, the said entries have been produced before the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the contention as above has no merit. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are affirmed. The appellant shall bear his own costs and shall bear that of the respondent. Counsel's fee, Rs. 500/-, if certified.