JUDGMENT L. N. MITTAL, J. Plaintiff (The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited – Markfed) having been non-suited by both the Courts below has filed this second appeal. Dispute relates to fire insurance claim made by plaintiff appellant against defendant/respondent-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Insurance of the plaintiff’s unit, which caught fire, had expired on 29.09.1988. Quotations for insurance for the further period were received by the plaintiff on 10.10.1988. The same were allegedly accepted on 13.10.1988 and subsequently on 31.10.1988. Plaintiff’s case is that cheque for insurance premium along with forwarding letter was given by plaintiff on 01.11.1988 at 10.30 am in plaintiff’s office to Mr. S. P. Singh, Development Officer of defendant-respondent who visited the office of the plaintiff on the said date and time. The unit of the plaintiff caught fire on 01.11.1988 itself at 2.45pm. Intimation was sent to the defendant at about 4.30pm. Defendant deputed surveyor who visited the unit on 02.11.1988 at about 3pm and made some preliminary enquiries. However, the defendant issued letter dated 02.11.1988 intimating that fire had taken place in the factory of the plaintiff prior to receipt of cheque of insurance premium by the defendant and, therefore, there was no insurance cover of the factory at the time of the incident of fire. The plaintiff, however, alleged that cheque of insurance premium had been given to defendant’s Development Officer prior to the fire because the cheque was given at 10.30am and the fire occurred at 2.45pm on 01.11.1988. The defendant, however, reiterated its stand that the cheque was received after the fire had already taken place. The cheque was delivered at the house of Development Officer S. P. Singh at about 9pm on 01.11.1988 and he delivered the cheque in the office on 02.11.1988 and the cheque was returned by the defendant to the plaintiff on 02.11.1988 itself because the fire incident had already taken place. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of `36,93,900.70 being the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the incident of fire. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the parties reiterated their aforesaid respective versions. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of `36,93,900.70 being the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the incident of fire. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the parties reiterated their aforesaid respective versions. However, counsel for the appellant also emphasized that the defendant had sent Surveyor on 02.11.1988 to the spot and it would depict that the cheque of insurance premium had been delivered before the incident of fire. Counsel for defendant-respondent, however, countered this contention by submitting that only spot inspection was got done so that the evidence could be noticed and no Surveyor was appointed. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiff has relied on its office notings contained in office file pages No.93 to 106 (Exhibit P-4). Reference has been made to notings dated 31.10.1988 and 01.11.1988. However, in notings dated 31.10.1988, noting at mark ‘C’ has been inserted later on as is apparent from naked eye perusal of the document. According to this noting, official who made it had allegedly contacted the Branch Manager of defendant and asked him to collect the letter and cheque (of insurance premium). However, there is nothing mark ‘B’ below the aforesaid noting mark ‘C’ wherein the draft letter and cheque were submitted for signatures so that the same could be delivered to the defendant. Thus the noting mark ‘C could be made only after letter and cheque had been signed and not before the same had been signed. As regards noting dated 01.11.1988 that Development Officer had visited the plaintiff’s office at 10.30am on 01.11.1988 and received the cheque of insurance premium, this noting by officials of the plaintiff is in their own file and said noting appears to have been made later on as cover up for the lapse of the plaintiff’s officials themselves because the fire incident had occurred on 01.11.1988 at 2.45pm and insurance of the unit had not been obtained although previous insurance had lapsed more than a month ago on 29.09.1988. This noting of 01.11.1988 is an admission by the plaintiff in its own favour in its own record which can not be used as substantive evidence against defendant-respondent to fasten the liability on it. This noting of 01.11.1988 is an admission by the plaintiff in its own favour in its own record which can not be used as substantive evidence against defendant-respondent to fasten the liability on it. On the contrary, S. P. Singh, Development Officer has appeared in the witness box and stated that the cheque was delivered at his residence at about 9.pm on 01.11.1988 and he delivered the same in his office on 02.11.1988. The cheque was returned by the defendant to the plaintiff on 02.11.1988 itself along with forwarding letter Exhibit P-11. It is thus manifest that there was no insurance cover of the factory unit at the time of fire incident. It would not be out of place to notice here that the plaintiff’s officials were proceeding at snail’s pace even after the previous insurance had lapsed on 29.09.1988. But suddenly, after the fire incident on 01.11.1988, they became hyper active and prepared the proceedings dated 31.10.1988 and 01.11.1988 to cover up their own apparent lapse. There is also tampering with date in the despatch register of the plaintiff regarding despatch of the letter with cheque in question. The said register was of despatches made on 01.11.1988 but by cutting, the date was changed to 31.10.1988. This fact has been admitted by plaintiff’s own witness PW-3 H. S. Verma, Steno. He made the aforesaid cutting although admittedly he was not even despatcher at the relevant time. As noticed hereinbefore, noting mark ‘C’ was also introduced later on in the office file of plaintiff in the notings dated 31.10.1988. Thus there is ample material on record to depict cover up operation by the plaintiff’s officials to cover their lapses and to fasten the liability on the defendant, although there was no insurance cover of the plaintiff unit at the time of fire incident. Emphasis of counsel of the appellant that Surveyor was appointed by the defendant depicting the insurance cover, is completely misplaced. Merely because on receiving incident of fire, some Surveyor was allegedly sent to inspect the spot so as to observe and notice the evidence at the spot, it cannot be said that the defendant in any manner accepted its liability or accepted that the factory stood insured at the time of fire. Merely because on receiving incident of fire, some Surveyor was allegedly sent to inspect the spot so as to observe and notice the evidence at the spot, it cannot be said that the defendant in any manner accepted its liability or accepted that the factory stood insured at the time of fire. For the reasons aforesaid as well as for other reasons recorded by the Courts below, I find that concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground that the factory unit was not under insurance cover at the time of fire is justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.