Judgment:
Archana arora Rs.No.3756 of 2014 1 2014.07.30 17:40 I am the author of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3756 of 2014 Date of decision: July 23, 2014 Ram Kumar ......Appellant Versus Ram Kumar .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN Present:- Mr.V.S.
Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
**** K.
Kannan, J (oral).1.
The appeal is without any merit, for, the decree is passed on an account entry that contains a debit against the defendant which he has signed admitting the liability.
The defence had been that the signature was his but the recitals had been falsely filled up.
It is the contention that the corroborating evidence relating to the several transactions that was said to have taken place earlier had not been produced before the Court.
It is stated that Section 34 requires a proof on account of entries and the same cannot be presumed.
While entry in account by itself cannot be a ground for presumption on correctness, if an account is settled and it contains the signatures of the party it will be futile to contend that entries are fabricated and the blank signature on an account book had been filled.
It is essentially a question of fact of whether Rs.No.3756 of 2014 2 there had been a liability undertaken by the defendant on subscribing the signatures and there arisen no substiantial question of law.
There is also a contention that future interest is granted at 9%.
In any commercial transaction the future interest could also be on the commercial rate and need not be at 6%.
It has come through amendment in Section 34 of the CPC that allows for future interest at 9% for commerical transactions at commercial rates.
2.
The second appeal is dismised.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE July 23, 2014 archana