Authority: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 7 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Surjit Singh (referred to as defendant) vs. Respondent M/s Green Commission Agents (plaintiff).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Second appeal (RSA No.3320 of 2018, O&M) concerning a civil suit for recovery of money owed for crop sales through the plaintiff’s commission‑agent business.
  • Claim Details: Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.2,84,180, comprising principal Rs.2,05,730 and interest Rs.78,450 calculated at 24% per annum up to the suit institution date (02‑01‑2008).
  • Background: Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 08‑03‑2005 demanding payment; defendant replied on 23‑03‑2007 refusing to pay. Defendant admitted selling crops through the plaintiff’s firm and alleged that the firm was run by Surinder Singh Lehra, who owed the defendant Rs.4,00,000.
  • Lower Courts’ Decree: Both subordinate courts decreed in favour of the plaintiff, awarding the principal Rs.2,05,730 with interest at 12% per annum from 01‑06‑2006 to the date of decree and 6% per annum thereafter until realisation.
  • Appellant’s Arguments: Counsel argued that the account‑book (bahi) entries were not proved per law; the entries began with a debit balance of Rs.85,540 carried forward without explanation; prior books (pre‑06‑09‑2000) were maintained by Accountant Manohar Lal, who was not examined. Reliance was placed on case law: Tarlok Singh vs. M/s R.R. Commission Agents (RSA No.90 of 2014, decided 25‑04‑2023), Karnail Singh vs. M/s Kalra Brothers (2009(2) RCR 380), and P. Sood & Co. vs. Peerchand Misrimalji Bhansali (2005(3) RCR(Civil) 64).
  • Respondent’s Evidence: Plaintiff produced the bahi entries (Exhibits P‑2 to P‑52) authored by Om Parkash (PW‑2), who was examined and proved the entries. All entries were signed by the defendant. Handwriting expert Dr. Navdeep Gupta (PW‑4) authenticated the signatures, and the defendant admitted his signatures.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court noted Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that account books alone are insufficient to charge liability, but found that the defendant did not dispute the signatures on the entries, and the handwriting expert’s testimony reinforced this. The argument about the unexplained debit carry‑forward was deemed immaterial given the subsequent signed entries.
  • Finding: The Court concluded that the defendant could not deny liability and found no merit in interfering with the factual findings of the lower courts.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Any pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Civil Recovery, Contract Dispute