ORDER SH. RAUF AHMAD, petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 6-7-2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6-10-2009, passed by learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, in a suit for recovery of Rs.82774.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had contended that he is a commission agent in Kamoke and provides pesticides, fertilizers, seeds and oil to his customers, who are landlords. He had maintained khata (account book). The defendant No. 1/ petitioner obtained pesticides, fertilizers, seeds and oil on credit according to his requirements. The defendant/respondent No.2 was a surety for the payment of price of above articles. It was contended that a sum of Rs.82774 was due from petitioner/defendant No.1 on account of price of goods supplied between 15-1-2001 to 19-1-2003.
The petitioner/defendant No.1 contested the suit and contended that the contention was wrong.
After framing the issues and recording evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6-7-2010.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the khata (account book) has wrongly been relied upon by the learned trial Court and the learned Addl. District Judge as the entries therein were not attested by 2 witnesses in accordance with law. It is also contended that the remaining evidence available on the record was not appreciated and both the Courts below had overlooked the contents of plaint inter alia showing that the goods were supplied on 15-1-2001 and the suit was filed on 10-1-2005 so the same was hopelessly barred by time.
4. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff had contended that the pesticides, fertilizers, seeds and oil were supplied from 15-1-2001 to 19-1-2003. This fact was proved from the khata (account book) maintained by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The 'Khatas' and 'Bahis' maintained in ordinary course of business are admissible in evidence. Under the Article 52 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, the suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered can be filed 'within three years of the delivery of the goods. According to khata book maintained by the appellant, the last supply was made in 2003 so the suit having been filed on 10-1-2005 was in time. Both the Courts below in this respect committed no error. The petitioner/ defendant had admitted in his evidence that he was 'khatadar' of the plaintiff/ respondent. He had not specifically denied the averments of the plaint regarding supply of goods and non-payment of price thereof. The entries made in the khata maintained in ordinary course of business are relevant.
Both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and their concurrent findings on the questions of fact do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No illegality or irregularity has been committed. No interference in the impugned judgments and decree is called for. The revision petition is without merits and same is dismissed in limine.