JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery against the appellants on the averments that appellant No.1 used to sell his crop through them and was also taking loan some times. Appellant No.2, being son of appellant No.1, also used to take loan from the respondents on behalf of his father and used to put his signatures in the account books. It was further alleged in the plaint that appellant No.1 through his son i.e. appellant No.2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs on 06.11.2001 from them in cash and in lieu thereof a writing was executed in the account books in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and thereafter defendant/appellant No.1 through his son i.e. appellant No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.2.90 lacs from the plaintiff/respondents on 24.04.2002 in cash and signed entries in the account books in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and promised to pay the said loan amount along with interest. After availing the said loan, the appellants neither sold their produce at the shop of the plaintiff/respondents nor did they repay anything out of the loan amount. Hence, the necessity arose to file the instant suit for recovery of Rs.5,90,000 as principal amount and Rs.2,92,500 on account of interest, total amounting to Rs.8,82,500. 2. The defendant-appellants in their written statement, raised various preliminary objections stating that suit of the plaintiff/respondents was false and frivolous as the alleged entries in the account books were forged and fabricated and have not been signed by defendant/appellant No.2. On merits, running of business of Commission Agency by the plaintiff/respondents at Badhni Kalan under the name and style of M/s Bamrah and Company was admitted, however, it was pleaded that defendant/appellant No.2 had no concern or dealing with the plaintiff/respondents and there was no occasion for him to obtain the said loan or to sign the account books. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover as prayed for along with interest as claimed on the basis of bahi writing dated 6.11.2001 and 24.4.2002? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether Jaswant Singh son of Mohan Singh has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover as prayed for along with interest as claimed on the basis of bahi writing dated 6.11.2001 and 24.4.2002? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether Jaswant Singh son of Mohan Singh has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and alleged bahis entries have been forged and fabricated, if so their effect? OPD 5. Relief. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 01.11.2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant/appellants filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court found that though the appellants have alleged that the entries in the account books are forged and fabricated one, but no cogent evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove their aforesaid assertion. It was further found by the courts below that the entries in the account books were duly made by PW-1 Parwinder Singh Accountant in the ordinary course of business and that the appellants signed the entries in the account books and thus, those entries were proved. 6. Still aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: (i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff/respondents is maintainable especially in view of Provision of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that suit merely on the basis of account books is not maintainable? (ii) Whether adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the plaintiffs for not appearing in the witness box? (iii) Whether the liability can be fastened upon the person who is not signatory to any of the writings and moreover when there is no authority proved on the record whereby authorizing the other persons to take money on his behalf? (iv) Whether the document which is marked and not exhibited can be read into evidence? (v) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are based upon surmises and conjectures? (vi) Whether both the ld. Courts have misread and misconstrued the evidence led by the parties? 7. (iv) Whether the document which is marked and not exhibited can be read into evidence? (v) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are based upon surmises and conjectures? (vi) Whether both the ld. Courts have misread and misconstrued the evidence led by the parties? 7. At this stage, it may further be noticed that despite denying their signatures, the appellants have not produced any Expert witness to prove that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, i.e. entries in the account books, were not bearing their signatures. Though the appellants have raised various substantial questions of law, said to be arising in this appeal, however, the main thrust of arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and thus, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are the result of perversity. 8. However, the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that entries in the account books have been duly proved and the appellants have failed to prove their defence, as asserted. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that the aforesaid entries are the result of forging or fabrication. Though it has been argued before this Court that the plaintiff/respondent has not stepped into the witness box to prove his case, however the aforesaid assertion is liable to be rejected on the ground that PW-1 Parwinder Singh has stepped into the witness box proving that he made the entries in the account books. Not only this, he has deposed being an Attorney of the respondents and was knowing the facts of the case. 9. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings so recorded by the courts below. 10. Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal, do not arise at all in this appeal. 11. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————