P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 180/85 on the file of I Additional subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent. ( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendant", as arrayed in the original suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of amount. The allegations made in the plaint are as follows: the plaintiff and defendant are contractors as they were doing contracts under the Urban Development Authority. Their works are adjacent to each other. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff advanced monies to the defendant from 1983 and a total sum of Rs. 3,35,150. 00 was given by the plaintiff to the defendant from time to time. The defendant was making part-payment. After striking the balance, a sum of Rs. 2,09,250. 00 was found due by 21-3-1985 and the defendant gave a cheque for Rs. 79,250. 00 on 21-3-1985 and the same was realised from the Bank and again on 23-3-1985 the defendant gave another cheque for the balance of Rs. 1,30,000. 00 and when the plaintiff presented a cheque at the bank, it was dishonoured. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of rs. 1,30,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. ( 4 ) IN the written statement it was pleaded that the plaint averments are incorrect. It was also pleaded that this defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. There is no necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend money. The defendant and the plaintiff did contract work jointly of VUDA and the plaintiff used to look after the contract work. For the purpose of that contract work, the defendant gave singed cheques to the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to draw the amounts by using the cheques. Except that, there is no debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the signed cheques with him, foisted this case and filed this false case. The plaintiff filled up the cheques signed by the defendant and filed this suit. The plaintiff has to pay the amount to this defendant in the contract work. Hence this suit is to be dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) THE trial Court had settled the following issues. The plaintiff filled up the cheques signed by the defendant and filed this suit. The plaintiff has to pay the amount to this defendant in the contract work. Hence this suit is to be dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) THE trial Court had settled the following issues. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? (2) To what relief? ( 6 ) THE plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and the defendant was examined as D. W. 1 exs. A-1 to A-12 and also Exs. X-1 and X-2 were marked. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to establish the claim and ultimately had dismissed the suit with costs, and aggrieved by the same the present Appeal is filed. ( 7 ) SRI Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff with all vehemence had contended that despite the fact that there is clear evidence available in record establishing the claim of the plaintiff, by adopting an erroneous approach, the trial court has dismissed the suit. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court was under the impression that the suit is based on Ex. A-1, but it is not so. The learned counsel also had explained in detail about ex. A-7, the account book and the entries made therein and also the relevancy of the said entries. The learned counsel further maintained that Ex. A-7 read along with exs. A-11, A-12, X-1 and X-2 clearly establish the existence of the debt and the relationship of the creditor and debtor between the parties and this aspect was not appreciated by the trial Court in is proper perspective. The learned counsel also further contended that the account book ex. A-7 is the one maintained in the ordinary course of business and definitely the same is relevant. Apart from this aspect of the matter, inasmuch as Ex. A-2 cheque had been issued and it is not in dispute at all, that itself can be taken as acknowledgment of debt even in view of Section 18 of the limitation Act 1963 and that itself can be taken as a corroborative evidence to the evidence of P. W. 1 and the trial Court had not appreciated this crucial aspect. A-2 cheque had been issued and it is not in dispute at all, that itself can be taken as acknowledgment of debt even in view of Section 18 of the limitation Act 1963 and that itself can be taken as a corroborative evidence to the evidence of P. W. 1 and the trial Court had not appreciated this crucial aspect. The learned counsel also had taken me through the evidence of P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 and certain admissions made by D. W. 1 in this regard. The learned counsel had placed reliance on prafulla Chandra v. Jatindra Nath It was also further contended that the plea relating to the non-maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was filed in individual capacity and not on behalf of the firm, had not been taken as a plea and hence on such a ground or on the ground that the relevant entries are not available to the income tax proceedings, the dismissal of the suit cannot be sustained and it is totally a wrong approach. ( 8 ) SRI Venkataramana, the learned Senior counsel on the other hand representing the defendant in the suit in his own systematic way had made the following submissions. The learned counsel had fairly submitted that issuance of Ex. A-2 is not in dispute. But that is not going to help in any way and it will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. The learned counsel further commented that no doubt Ex. A-7 was produced on the ground that it is an account book regularly maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of business. It may be relevant, but definitely that itself is not sufficient to fasten the liability and some more evidence is definitely essential. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Section 34 of the indian Evidence Act and also had placed reliance on Chandradhar v. Gauhati Bank and V. Seetharamaiah v. Srirama Motor finance Corporation. It may be relevant, but definitely that itself is not sufficient to fasten the liability and some more evidence is definitely essential. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Section 34 of the indian Evidence Act and also had placed reliance on Chandradhar v. Gauhati Bank and V. Seetharamaiah v. Srirama Motor finance Corporation. The learned counsel further had taken me through the evidence of P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 and had further contended that when the accounts relate to a firm, whether a specific plea is taken relating to the maintainability of suit or not, since it is a defect going to the very root of the matter, definitely the suit is not maintainable and hence the trial Court was justified in negativing the relief on that ground. Apart from this aspect of the matter, when the party is an income tax assessee, the absence of the corresponding proof also is definitely a strong and relevant factor and when the same is absent, the trial Court is well justified in inferring that the plea raised by the plaintiff relating to recovery is an unsustainable plea. The learned counsel while answering about the contention relating to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had large is a procedural law and section 18 on doubt deals with the saving of limitation in case of an acknowledgment debt. But however that is not going to help the plaintiff in any way and the mere issuance of cheque as such - Ex. A-2, cannot be read as a corroborative evidence to that of the evidence of P. W. 1 and hence the trial court is well justified in recording the correct findings and had arrived at proper conclusion negativing the relief in favour of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 10 ) AS can be culled out from the respective contentions of the parties and also the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following Points arise for consideration is this Appeal: (1) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) To what relief the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to? ( 11 ) POINT No. 1: The specific case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed the amount and as per the account, the defendant was found due about rs. (2) To what relief the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to? ( 11 ) POINT No. 1: The specific case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed the amount and as per the account, the defendant was found due about rs. 2,00,000/- and odd and he had given a cheque for Rs,79,000/- which was no doubt encashed and for the balance he had given cheque for Rs,1,30,000/- which was dishonoured. The stand taken by the respondent/defendant is that there is no debt due to the appellant/plaintiff and the plaintiff has to pay the amount to the defendant during the contract works which had been done jointly. The issuance of cheque dated 23-3-1985 - Ex. A-2, is not in serious dispute. No doubt, by virtue of Ex. A-3 and Ex. A-4, it had been shown that the same was not honoured by the Bank. Apart from this, ex. A.-1, a statement of account was filed along with the plaint. Here itself, it may be pertinent to note that except the evidence of p. W. 1 there is no other evidence forthcoming to prove either the entries made in the Katha or the account. As against the evidence of P. W. 1, there is total denial on oath by D. W. 1, the defendant in the suit. It is just oath against oath. No doubt, a serious contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the contention of the joint contract as raised by the defendant, had not been established, automatically it should be inferred that ex. A-2 is in a way a corroborative piece of evidence relating to Ex. A-7 transaction. ( 12 ) I am unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that as can be seen from the evidence of P. W. 1, it is clear and categorical that the amounts lent to the defendant belong to the firm but he has filed the suit in his individual capacity and P. W. 1 also noted the payment in the account books maintained by him and the defendant used to sign in the said note book in consideration of the receipt of amount, but he had deposed that book was taken away by the defendant. Absolutely, no convincing evidence is forthcoming why the defendant had taken away the said book, for what purpose and who had maintained these accounts, which were kept and maintained in the regular of business and who made the relevant entries. None of the persons concerned had been examined except P. W. 1 In fact, the trial court, at length, had discussed the evidence of P. W. 1 and had arrived at a conclusion that in view of the categorical admissions made by P. W. 1 himself, the defects cannot be cured and the plaintiff had miserably failed to establish his case. Further, the trial Court also had discussed at length the other important aspects which in a way negative stand taken by the plaintiff. It was also categorically stated that absolutely there are no corresponding relevant entries relating to these payments in the documents of the alleged firm in relation to the Income-tax department. In the absence of entries relating to these payments, I am of considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard is a well considered finding and I am not inclined to disturb this finding also. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also further strenuously contended that the trial Court had gone wrong in doubting the very existence of the debt, especially in view of Ex. A-2 coupled with Ex. A-7, A-11, A-12 and Exs. X-1 and X-2 and strong reliance was placed a Section 18 of the Limitation act, 1963. ( 14 ) IN the decision referred (1) supra, it was no doubt held that a chaque accepted by payee operate as payment as well as acknowledgement of payment in the handwriting of the person making the payment. There cannot be any quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in the said decision. But the question is how far Ex. A-2 can be connected with the suit transaction especially in the light of the admission made by P. W. 1 on all the these transactions relating to the firm and in the absence of any connecting link, I do not think that Ex. A-2 can be read along with Ex. A-7. But the question is how far Ex. A-2 can be connected with the suit transaction especially in the light of the admission made by P. W. 1 on all the these transactions relating to the firm and in the absence of any connecting link, I do not think that Ex. A-2 can be read along with Ex. A-7. In this context, it may be relevant to have a look at Section 34 of the India Evidence Act, which reads as follows: entries in books of account when relevant.- Entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. " it is also relevant to note that Section 34 itself specifies ". . . . . . . . . but such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability". Hence, it is always essential that though Ex. A-7 was produced and P. W. 1 was examined, some further evidence to establish the entries is desirable and highly essential to establish the debt. The same view was expressed in the decision referred (2) supra. In the decision referred (3) supra, it was held that an entry in ledger account of the plaintiff that a certain sum was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant when not supported by any receipt of payment or voucher is not by itself sufficient to establish that the sum was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The trial court had discussed the respective contentions of the parties in detail and had disbelieved the stand taken by the plaintiff and the trial Court after narrating all the circumstances had specifically given a finding that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the circumstances under which the debt came into existence and the actual amount due and the other details. In the absence of all these details, especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the defendant, it cannot be said that the burden cast upon the plaintiff in law had been discharged and in the absence of clear evidence in this regard, I do not think that the view taken by the trial Court is not sustainable. In the absence of all these details, especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the defendant, it cannot be said that the burden cast upon the plaintiff in law had been discharged and in the absence of clear evidence in this regard, I do not think that the view taken by the trial Court is not sustainable. ( 15 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, i had gone through the evidence of D. W. 1 also in this regard, who had categorically narrated the circumstances under which ex. A-2 was issued and in fact there is an admission made in this regard. On appreciation of the total deposition of D. W. 1, i am well convinced that the stand taken by the defendant is justifiable stand and the findings recorded by the trial Court are well based on both oral and documentary evidence and are in accordance with law. Hence, I am not inclined to disturb any of findings recorded by the trial Court. Point No. 2: In the light of the findings recorded by me above, the Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed, with costs.