JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J (Oral):- C.M.No.13013-C of 2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 273 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.4827 of 2013 (O&M) 1. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellants on the averments that plaintiff was running a business of purchase and sale of iron and steel goods and defendants used to purchase steel sheets on credit from the plaintiff. On 1.4.2003 there was an outstanding balance against the defendants to the tune of Rs. 2,40,019/- and on 1.4.2004, the outstanding balance against the defendants was Rs. 2,03,337/-. The statement of account of the plaintiff for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2004 was duly endorsed and signed by defendant No.2 under seal of defendant No.1. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the year 2004-05, also goods were purchased by the defendants and two cheques were issued by the defendants but they remained unpaid, future payments were made by cheques by the defendants in the financial year 2004-05 and finally on 18.02.2005, there was outstanding balance of Rs. 1,19,849-50 paise. As per terms and conditions of the business, defendants were also required to pay interest @ 18% per annum in case the payment for goods purchased was not made within 60 days. Plaintiff also issued a legal notice upon the defendants asking them to make the payment of sum due towards them, since the needful was not done, then suit for recovery of Rs. 1,34,225/- which included interest also was filed. 2. Upon notice, written statement was filed raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that timely payment was being made by the defendants with regard to business transactions. It was specifically denied that any amount was due towards defendants as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, it was pleaded that during the period 2004-05, certain goods were purchased from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 16,938/- and Rs. 19,990/-. For the said goods payment was made by way of cheque. Later on, it was realized that defendants had issued said cheques inadvertently and due to oversight as payment regarding the said goods was already made. It was further pleaded that nothing was due towards the defendants as they have not to pay anything to the plaintiff. 19,990/-. For the said goods payment was made by way of cheque. Later on, it was realized that defendants had issued said cheques inadvertently and due to oversight as payment regarding the said goods was already made. It was further pleaded that nothing was due towards the defendants as they have not to pay anything to the plaintiff. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs. 1,34,225/- along with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of institution of this suit as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands in this Court? OPP 3. Whether present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Relief. 4. In order to prove his case plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has supported his pleadings. Further he has proved the documents, Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Ex.P1 was copy of Account Book pertaining to account of defendants, Ex.P-2 was bill dated 29.6.2004, Ex.P-3 to Ex.P6 were copies of bank memoes, Ex.P7 was copy of notice, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 were postal receipt and UPC, Ex.P10 was acknowledgment and Ex.P11 to Ex. P13 Statement of accounts related to accounts of defendants. 5. On the other hand, defendant No.2 appeared for defendants and tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/A in the shape of examination-in-chief and proved documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. Ex.D1 to Ex.D2 were copies of payment advice dated 7.5.2004, 17.5.2004 vide letter dated 20.5.2004 (Ex.D3) plaintiff was requested not to present the cheques, Ex.D4 was copy showing the address of M/s Santosh Steels and Ex.D5 was extract of resolution, Dr. Satya Dev Aggarwal was examined as DW2, who being hand-writing expert has tendered his affidavit Ex.DW2/A and proved Ex.DW2/8 written report, Ex.DW2/C to Ex.DW/G Enlarge Photographs and Ex.DW2/H their Negative. A few documents i.e. Ex.D6 intimation dated 27.3.2006, Ex.D-7 closure of the Unit and Mark-A to Mark-C Certificates relating to qualification of DW2, were tendered by the learned counsel for the defendants. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs for recovery of Rs. 1,34,225/- from the defendants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing suit till its realization. 7. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs for recovery of Rs. 1,34,225/- from the defendants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing suit till its realization. 7. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.10.2012. The relevant paragraphs of the lower Appellate Court read thus:- 13. From the aforesaid circumstances the factual position emerging from the record is that both the plaintiff and defendant no.1 were dealing with each other on account of business transactions between them. Vide present suit plaintiff has come up with the plea that there were outstanding dues against the defendants and to show that statement of account of defendant maintained by plaintiff for financial year (1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005) (Ex.P13) has been relied upon, also invoice No.204 dated 29.6.2004 (Ex.P2) has been placed on record to show that goods worth Rs. 73,000/- were supplied by plaintiff to the defendants. Entry of said invoice was mentioned in statement of account Ex. P13 . 14. Defendants vide written statement as well as on the strength of evidence of defendant no.2 (director of defendant no.1) have set up a specific plea that nothing was due towards defendants and the amount being claimed by plaintiff has already been paid way back in the year 2004. 15. In the circumstances, the short point to be decided in this case is whether the defendants have already cleared all their dues towards the plaintiff. Record reveals that in order to discharge their onus to the extent that all the dues were cleared in the year 2004 by them, defendants have not led any evidence at all. In order to support the pleadings, plaintiff has proved statements of account (Ex.P-1. Ex.P11 to Ex.P13) of defendant No.1 maintained by him, that apart invoice Ex.P2 has also been relied upon to show that the amount mentioned in the same (Rs.73,000/-) was due towards defendants. It is strange that on the one hand defendants have taken a specific plea that entire payment has been made by them to plaintiff on account of goods supplied by plaintiff, but at the same time not even a single document to support the said plea has been placed on record. It is strange that on the one hand defendants have taken a specific plea that entire payment has been made by them to plaintiff on account of goods supplied by plaintiff, but at the same time not even a single document to support the said plea has been placed on record. Defendant No.1 is private limited concern and it cannot be presumed that being a private limited company no record was being maintained by it. Any company or concern cannot survive in business without maintaining the proper accounts. The best evidence was in the shape of books of accounts maintained by defendants to show that the entire payment has been made to plaintiff, however, no such material was proved on record. Also no other supporting documents including statements in the shape of balance sheet etc. or from bank have been placed on record. For the reasons best known to them defendants have withheld the best evidence to show that as per their version the entire payment was made to plaintiff. In the circumstances, it can easily be presumed that non-production of any document by defendants would mean that the amount claimed by plaintiff has not been cleared by them. Even DW1 (director of defendant No.1) in his cross-examination had admitted that no statement of account has been placed on record either with written statement or in evidence. The documents proved by defendants i.e. three endorsements (Ex.D1 to Ex.D3) related to previous business transactions between plaintiff and defendants and said documents nowhere proved the factum of payment by defendants. The other documents proved by DW1 i.e. Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6 whereby intimation regarding closure of unit was given again no where proved the payment to plaintiff. Apart from evidence of Assen Takyar DW2, defendants have also examined Satyadev Aggarwal being hand-writing expert as DW2. On the strength of evidence of said witness (who has compared the specimen signatures of defendant No.2) it has been contended that never the statement of account maintained by plaintiff was endorsed/signed by defendant No.2 to acknowledge the outstanding amount. Record reveals that Satyadev Aggarwal being hand-writing expert compared the signatures of defendant No.2 by taking his specimen signatures from statement of account Ex.P1, which as per plaintiff’s version was signed by him. Record reveals that Satyadev Aggarwal being hand-writing expert compared the signatures of defendant No.2 by taking his specimen signatures from statement of account Ex.P1, which as per plaintiff’s version was signed by him. To prepare the report, said signatures were taken as specimen signatures and same were compared with signatures of defendant No.2 on written statement as well as on Vakalatnama signed by him. On the basis of his report DW2 has tried to project that defendant No.2 never signed statement of account Ex.P1 and signatures over the same were different from his signatures on vakalatnama and written statement. However, the evidence of said witness (DW-2) is of no help. From the very perusal of enlarged photographs of signatures attached with report by said witness it reveals that defendant No.2 has even signed differently on both written statement as well as on vakalatnama. Signatures on vakalatnama (A1) is visibly different and distinguishable from signature on written statement (A2 and A3). Even different pattern has been used in both signatures. In these circumstances, once the signatures of defendant No.2 on both the vakalatnama and written statement signed by him are different, defendants cannot be permitted to take the benefit that defendant No.2 did not sign statement of account Ex.P1. Thus, evidence of DW2 being handwriting expert is also of no help for the defendants and they cannot escape from their liability to pay the plaintiff on account of outstanding dues. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants (as mentioned in para No.11 of this judgment) are also of no help. From the perusal of cited judgments in reveals that same were rendered in the peculiar circumstances arising in each individual case. In the present case as discussed above, defendants have not proved any document to show that entire payment has been made by them to the plaintiff.” 8. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- 1. Whether poorly maintained fabricated account books could be relied for the balance payment? 2. Whether learned Courts below failed to appreciate evidences in right perspective? 3. Whether appellant could be asked to prove the issue whereas onus of proving is on the other side? 9. Whether poorly maintained fabricated account books could be relied for the balance payment? 2. Whether learned Courts below failed to appreciate evidences in right perspective? 3. Whether appellant could be asked to prove the issue whereas onus of proving is on the other side? 9. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that nothing was due against the appellants as they have made all the payments in time. However, respondentplaintiff has prepared false accounts and have manipulated factitious documents which cannot confer any liability upon the appellants to pay the balance amount. According to the appellants, plaintiff has placed reliance upon certain computer generated lose sheets EX.P.1, Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 by giving them the colour of account statements which cannot be relied upon as they do not satisfy the requirement of law and moreover, plaintiff has himself admitted the account statements was not attested by any Chartered Accountant whereas the plaintiff-respondent gets his entire account statement audited. It is the further case of the appellants that plaintiff was intentionally and deliberately claiming amount twice against the same invoice which is clear from the fact that DW1 had assured the defendants that he would not present the cheques which were inadvertently issued twice and all this shows that there was strong possibility of manipulation and therefore, the appellants having failed to prove the impugned liability of the appellants, the impugned judgments and decrees were liable to be set aside as such evidence placed on record is not sufficient to burden the appellants with liability. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not disputed that the transactions have taken place between the plaintiff and defendants and the specific stand taken by the defendants in this case is that they have made all the payments and nothing was due towards them. 12. However, both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the appellants are liable to pay the amount as claimed. 12. However, both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the appellants are liable to pay the amount as claimed. Both the Courts below have further recorded a concurrent finding that plaintiff-respondent has proved that amount in question was actually due against the appellants whereas appellants have not brought out any document on record which could warrant the rebuttal from their side and prove that the payments have been made. Even otherwise, counsel for the appellants could not dispute that in the case in hand, it could not be argued that the findings of the Courts below are without any evidence. Once that is so, simply because a different view can be taken from the evidence on record that will not be a ground to interfere in the findings so recorded as the same is not permissible under Section 100 of the C.P.C. 13. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. 14. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------