JUDGMENT : As per M.C. Garg, J. : - The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sendhwa in Civil Suit No. 35 (B) of 1992. 2. The suit was preferred by the appellant before the learned Trial Court against the respondents alleging that two policies were purchased from respondents for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively, and during policy period on 5-4-1989 fire took place at Radha Ginning Pressing Factory, Sendhwa and in which 160 cotton bales of the appellant were burnt. They preferred a claim for the loss with the respondents, which was repudiated by the respondent. Thus, suit was filed to claim cost of damaged goods and interest thereon totalling to Rs. 5,05,480/-. 3. The respondents contested the suit and denied the allegations and it was averred by the respondents that in fact appellant had no goods when fire took place in the premises of Radha Ginning Pressing Factory, Sendhwa, but M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal and M/s Sukhlal Banwarilal Agrawal, Pansemal whose 155 cotton bales were kept in Radha Ginning Pressing Factory, Sendhwa had no insurance and to accommodate the said M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal and Sukhlal Banwarilal Agrawal, Pansemal and without there being any actual transactions, bills were produced and related documents were prepared to claim undue advantage of the policy which the appellant had. It was also averred that there was also duplication of press marks and, therefore, based upon investigation report of Commission Officer, Mr. Mohan Rao, the claim was repudiated. It was also alleged that to claim undue advantage of the policy, false sale transaction was shown and compensatory cost was also claimed. 4. The respondents specifically pleaded in their written statement that plaintiff had no insurable interest in the goods. It was pleaded that plaintiff had no stock of fully pressed bales on the date of alleged fire. At the same time, M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal and Sukhlal Bhanwarilal Agrawal, Pansemal had no insurance of the goods belonging to them for the bales bearing numbers allotted by Ginning and Pressing Factory 11682 to 117311 and 11457 to 115062, total 100 bales. So also M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal also had no insurance in relation to bales bearing Nos. 10832-10886 (total 155 bales). So also M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal also had no insurance in relation to bales bearing Nos. 10832-10886 (total 155 bales). Plaintiff in collusion with these two parties tried to accommodate them to give benefit of insurance policy available with them and tried to show purchase and sale bills from these two parties by way of alleged fictitious bills contrary to the normal terms of business. Ginning Factory also allowed to reconstruct the record and all these facts came to the knowledge of the respondents in the investigation which was conducted by Wing Commander, Mr. Mohan Rao, who appeared as D.W. 1. 5. The appellant did not examine himself but his power of attorney was examined and in addition to that other witnesses were examined but no books of accounts or other supporting documents were placed on record whereas on behalf of the respondents, investigator Mr. Mohan Rao Nayadu was examined to prove his investigation report which is Exh. D-3. In his report, in so far as the appellant is concerned, it has been clearly opined that the claim was bogus and suggestion was given to repudiate the said claim. The witness on behalf of Insurance Company had appeared as D.W. 1, Mohan Rao. In his deposition, he has reiterated the conclusion drawn by him in his investigation report. As regard the claim of Navin Ginning Factory, it has been very specifically stated that there is manipulation of records. 6. Investigation is exhaustive in nature and findings have been recorded by the investigator based upon the evidence. He collected to show the fake transaction carried out to claim undue advantage of the policy obtained by the appellant. 7. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issue :- The relevant issues framed on 20-12-1991. (1) Whether plaintiffs 160 cotton bales set on fire on 5-4-1989 as detailed out in Para 7 of the plaint ? (2) Whether plaintiff sustained loss by fire for an amount of ?6,ir,232.42. (3) Whether cotton bales were duly insured with defendant company ? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 6,05,480/- as described in Para 10 of the plaint ? (5) Whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for paying the above said compensation ? (6) Whether plaintiff s claim is fraudulent and baseless ? (3) Whether cotton bales were duly insured with defendant company ? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 6,05,480/- as described in Para 10 of the plaint ? (5) Whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for paying the above said compensation ? (6) Whether plaintiff s claim is fraudulent and baseless ? (7) If so, whether defendants are entitled to set compensatory costs amounting to Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff ? (8) Relief and costs? Additional issues dated 1-6-1992. (9) Whether the plaintiff in collusion with Balaji Trading Co., Pansemal and Sukhlal Bhanwarilal Pansemal fraudulently shown the purchases alleged in Para 3 of the plaint and consideration of the purchase was paid by cheque ? (10) Whether prior to purchase by the plaintiff the goods described in Para 3 were, insured in any company by the vendors of the alleged bill ? (11) Whether the bank in order to help the plaintiff s took anti dated letters as they were not affected financially and when no financial transactions took place ? (12) Whether the plaintiff adjusted the said vendors of the bills shown in Para 3 of the plaint because the vendors had no insurance in any company at the time of alleged fire ? (13) Whether the Ginning Factory reconstructed their records to give benefit to the plaintiffs and also to the vendors of the sale described in Para 3 of the plaint ? 8. The learned Trial Court based upon the evidence has given specific findings vide Para 16 onwards and specifically has held that sale transaction which has been shown cannot be considered to be genuine. It was also held that Exhs. P-5, P-6 and P-7 bills which are on letter pad are not found to be issued during the course of ordinary business. It was also found that cotton which is a controlled item, and therefore, the bills could have been issued only following provision of sales tax. It was observed that no accounts either of sale or purchase was produced to show the concerned entries. No gate pass nor stock register or payment details have been produced. It was also held that plaintiff accommodated M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal and Sukhlal Bhanwarilal Agrawal, Pansemal who had no insurance but had their bales laying in the Radha Ginning Pressing Factory, Sendhwa at the time of fire. 9. No gate pass nor stock register or payment details have been produced. It was also held that plaintiff accommodated M/s Balaji Trading Company, Pansemal and Sukhlal Bhanwarilal Agrawal, Pansemal who had no insurance but had their bales laying in the Radha Ginning Pressing Factory, Sendhwa at the time of fire. 9. In the Para 18 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court further held that claim was baseless in nature and was fraudulent by restructuring and preparing bills and transfer papers. Surprisingly, owner of the appellant did not appear before the learned Trial Court and it was his attorney appeared for him. Accordingly, suit has been dismissed. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon due appreciation of evidence and by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be erroneous in any manner, as the respondents have duly proved their case whereas the appellant failed to prove the alleged sale. Except the three bills on alleged letter pads, no other supporting evidence is on record to prove the sale to be genuine. Whereas the respondents have proved the investigation report, which was based upon the evidence collected by the investigator, and have proved that the alleged sale transaction was bogus and fraudulent. 11. The appellant has produced certain judgments and statements recorded in other cases and have placed them on record as additional evidence by making application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC but have not dared to place on record the accounts and related documents to show transaction and entries of sale and purchase. The judgments which have been placed on record as additional evidence cannot have any bearing upon the dispute in the present appeal as in other cases, respondents were not a party and it was inter se dispute between the other parties. 12. While allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, which only relates to judgment delivered in respect to claims of other persons, we are still of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence which has come on record, claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. Those paragraphs which deal with the evidence available on record regarding ownership of the cotton bales of the appellant are reproduced hereunder :- XXX XXX XXX 13. Those paragraphs which deal with the evidence available on record regarding ownership of the cotton bales of the appellant are reproduced hereunder :- XXX XXX XXX 13. In the light of the discussions and having taken note of submissions made by both the Counsel and on perusal of the evidence which has come on record which goes to show that the appellant has failed to prove that they actually owned the cotton bales for which they claimed insurance amount, in fact, was not owned by them, in as much as they have not produced any record to prove their ownership, even though the cotton bales are covered by the controlled order which requires maintenance of proper account, the appellant neither examined himself, nor has produced its own record including accounts which could have established that they really purchased the cotton bales from the vendors as referred to by the appellant in his claim and in the statement made by his attorney. They have also not produced record of the seller to prove the transaction. The investigator has found that even otherwise there was forge being committed and in fact number of bales for which claim was made, could not have been pressed or kept in the Ginning Factory. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.