JUDGMENT 1. - Call for the record. Since C.S. Kotwani has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the notice need not be issued to the sole respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that plaintiff pressed the case merely on the basis of bill dated 12.06.2006, wherein allegedly the appellant had bought sixty-three bags weighing one quintal each, priced at Rs. 729 per quintal. Secondly, according to the plaintiff although the said wheat was bought and delivered to the appellant, the appellant failed to make payment for the said wheat. In order to buttress his contention, the plaintiff had submitted a copy of the bill. According to the learned counsel, the entire case is based on the existence of the bill (Ex. 2). However, the bill does not contain the signature of the appellant or any of his agent. Moreover, the plaintiff in his testimony could not reveal the person who has taken the delivery of the bags. Although the plaintiff claims that he had the record of the Sales-tax Department as well as the record of Income-tax Department, he did not produce the same before the learned trial Court. Furthermore, according to the appellant, a fake bill has been submitted. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he neither ordered, nor received any bags of wheat from the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff did not maintain any books of account which contained his signature. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove the fundamental facts of the case that the wheat was ordered and delivered to the appellant. Lastly, the learned judge has merely relied upon conjectures and surmises in order to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Most importantly, the learned judge has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant ostensibly on the ground that although he claims that he had maintained the account books, but he had not produced the same. According to the learned counsel, the weakness of the defendant does not strengthen the case of the plaintiff. As it is for the plaintiff to first establish his case through cogent evidence. In the present case, the cogent evidence is conspicuously missing. According to the learned counsel, the weakness of the defendant does not strengthen the case of the plaintiff. As it is for the plaintiff to first establish his case through cogent evidence. In the present case, the cogent evidence is conspicuously missing. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the operation of the judgment and decree be stayed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that although the appellant had claimed that he had maintained account books, he has failed to produce the same. Hence the learned judge was certainly justified in drawing adverse inference. Moreover, he has relied upon Exhibit-13, a certificate issued by the Sales-tax Department, in order to prove the fact that wheat was actually sold to the appellant. 5. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Exhibit-13, in fact, strengthens and corroborates the case of the appellant as according to the sales-tax department no VAT was paid on the alleged sale. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the impugned judgment is based on the bill produced by the plaintiff. However, admittedly the bill does not contain the signature of the appellant. Moreover, there is no other document which indicates that the bags in question were actually delivered to the appellant or to his agent. The plaintiff in his cross-examination claims that sixty-three bags were delivered to the younger son of the appellant. But, there is no documentary proof to establish this fact. Secondly, merely because the appellant has failed to produce his accounts books, the money decree could not be passed solely on the basis of adverse inference. For it was a duty of the plaintiff-respondent to establish his case through cogent evidence. However, prima facie, the plaintiff-respondent has failed to establish its case through reliable evidence. Therefore, this Court is convinced that prima facie the appellant has strong case in his favour; the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. In case the appellant is compelled to satisfy the decree during the pendency of this appeal, an irreparable loss would be caused to him. For, he would be subjected to a judgment and decree which, prima facie, cannot be sustained in law. In case the appellant is compelled to satisfy the decree during the pendency of this appeal, an irreparable loss would be caused to him. For, he would be subjected to a judgment and decree which, prima facie, cannot be sustained in law. Therefore this Court stays the operation of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 during the pendency of the appeal.Stay Petition Allowed. *******