JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : Defendant Kailash Chand, having lost in both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. 2. Respondent-plaintiff M/s Mangaliawala Traders, through its Proprietor Subhash Chand, filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.5,10,000/- alleging that the plaintiff is Commission Agent and the defendant is agriculturist. The defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 28.01.2004, Rs.40,000/- on 30.01.2004, Rs.60,000/- on 02.02.2004, Rs.50,000/- on 03.02.2004, Rs.45,000/- on 05.02.2004 and Rs.55,000/- on 09.02.2004 i.e. total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and signed entries in account books of the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per mensum, but failed to repay the loan amount and interest nor sold his agricultural produce thereafter at the shop of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,10,000/- as interest thereon till filing of the suit. 3. The defendant admitted that he was selling agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff, but denied having borrowed the disputed amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant, however, pleaded that farmers borrow some amounts from Commission Agents for fertilizers, pesticides and other necessities at the time of sowing crops and after crop time and the Commission Agents obtain signatures or thumb impressions of the farmers in account books or on blank papers, but the accounts are cleared at the time of sale of agricultural produce. The defendant alleged that he cleared all the amounts of the plaintiff, which were taken at any stage and nothing is due against him. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the dates of borrowing till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011 except regarding modification of rate of interest, which was reduced to 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery, although maintained @ 8% per annum from the last date of loan i.e. 09.02.2004 till filing of suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and examined handwriting expert Anil Kumar Gupta as PW-2 and also examined plaintiff’s Accountant Ram Niwas as PW-4. Plaintiff and Ram Niwas broadly stated according to the plaint allegations. Anil Kumar Gupta – handwriting expert reported that the disputed bahi entries bear signatures of the defendant. 7. On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and reiterated his version. 8. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant – an agriculturist has limited needs and there was no necessity for the defendant to have borrowed huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff within a short period of two weeks. It was also submitted that plaintiff would not have advanced such huge amount to the defendant within short duration of two weeks. It was also pointed out that sheets of bahi of the plaintiff were loose and unstitched, and therefore, it cannot be said that the same were maintained in regular course of business and consequently, suit based on said entries could not be decreed. It is also pointed out that the disputed bahi entries are apparently fake and forged because only the said bahi entries bear revenue stamps and no other bahi entry bear revenue stamp. It was also submitted that the bahi in question does not bear signature or stamps of income-tax department or sale-tax department. It was also submitted that the disputed bahi entries were written by Ram Niwas (PW-4), but were exhibited in the statement of plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand (PW-1), who could not prove the same. It was also contended that photostat copies of the bahi entries are not admissible in evidence. Submission for reducing the interest rate to 6% from 8% was also made. Reliance in this regard has also been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. M/s Kalra Brothers, Sirsa reported as [2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 579] : 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 380. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to accept the same. Plaintiff has led cogent and sufficient evidence to prove its case. The plaintiff’s Proprietor himself appeared in the witness-box and examined his Accountant, who had authored the disputed bahi entries. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to accept the same. Plaintiff has led cogent and sufficient evidence to prove its case. The plaintiff’s Proprietor himself appeared in the witness-box and examined his Accountant, who had authored the disputed bahi entries. Both of them have proved the said bahi entries bearing signatures of the defendant and also proved advancement of different amounts, as pleaded in the plaint. Their statements are also corroborated by handwriting expert Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-2). On the other hand, there is self-serving oral statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s cogent evidence. 10. It may be added that the defendant impliedly admitted his signatures on the disputed bahi entries by pleading that he had been taking some advance amounts from the plaintiff for various needs and the plaintiff had been obtaining his signatures on bahi entries. The defendant also alleged that he had cleared the amount taken from the plaintiff at any stage. However, oral self-serving statement of the defendant in this regard is not sufficient to establish the defendant’s claim. 11. As regards necessity of the defendant for the suit amount, the plaintiff should have been cross-examined on this aspect and he could explain the same. Moreover, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- cannot be said to be such huge amount, which could not have been advanced to the defendant for his needs. It also cannot be said that the defendant is not in a capacity to receive and repay the aforesaid loan amount. Claim on bahi entries alone may not be decreed in view of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, even if the bahis are maintained in regular course of business. However, in the instant case, claim of the plaintiff is not based on bahi entries only, but is based on entries signed by the defendant regarding receipt of various amounts. In fact, the defendant, in his own hand, has also written on the bahi entries regarding receipt of various amounts. Consequently, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s claim is based on unsigned bahi entries, which could not have been decreed. Moreover, bahi entries are supplemented by plaintiff’s evidence i.e. statements of plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand and Accountant Ram Niwas. 12. In fact, the defendant, in his own hand, has also written on the bahi entries regarding receipt of various amounts. Consequently, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s claim is based on unsigned bahi entries, which could not have been decreed. Moreover, bahi entries are supplemented by plaintiff’s evidence i.e. statements of plaintiff’s Proprietor Subhash Chand and Accountant Ram Niwas. 12. The mere fact that the disputed bahi entries only bear the revenue stamps and other entries do not bear the revenue stamps would not be fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. The disputed bahi entries have been validly stamped and if some other entries pertaining to some other transactions (not concerning the defendant) do not bear the revenue stamp, the same is irrelevant for adjudication of the instant lis. The mere fact, that bahi entries do not bear signatures or stamps of income-tax and sale-tax departments, would not depict that the bahis were not produced before the said departments. Merely because the amounts were advanced within short span of two weeks, would not be sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff. Bahi entries have also been proved by examining the author thereof namely Ram Niwas – Accountant of the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff’s Proprietor could also prove the same if the same were made in his presence. Photostat copies of the bahi entries are admissible in evidence when original entries are produced in the Court. 13. Interest @ 8% per annum for pre-suit period cannot be said to be excessive by any standards so as to call for any further reduction. Thus, the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant are devoid of substance. Even otherwise, these contentions relate to appreciation of evidence and do not raise any question of law. 14. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor the said finding is based on misappreciation or misreading of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ------------