Bilaspur : the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a civil appeal filed by a Bilaspur-based coal trader seeking recovery of over ₹21 lakh from a brick manufacturing firm, holding that the claim was unsupported by reliable and independent evidence.
The dispute arose between Lalwani and Sons, a coal supplier, and Cheema Bricks, a brick kiln operator based in Mahasamund. The appellant, who argued the matter in person, had challenged a 2017 trial court judgment that rejected his recovery suit.
According to the appellant, he had supplied coal to the respondents during the financial years 2011–12 and 2012–13. He claimed that despite receiving partial payments, an outstanding amount of ₹18.45 lakh remained due. With added interest and damages, the total claim was stated at ₹21.18 lakh.
The respondents denied the allegations, contending that all dues had been cleared and, in fact, excess payments had been made. Although they initially filed a counterclaim alleging overpayment, the same had already been dismissed and was not pursued further.
Upholding the trial court’s findings, the division bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha emphasized that in civil recovery suits, the burden of proof squarely rests on the plaintiff. The court found that the appellant relied primarily on self-prepared documents such as account statements, schedules, and credit memos, without producing original records or any independent corroboration.
The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including the absence of original account books, delivery orders, transport records, invoices, and income tax returns. During cross-examination, the appellant admitted that many of the documents were based on his own records and that supporting materials had not been filed.
Reiterating the principle under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court observed that entries in books of account, even if regularly maintained, cannot by themselves establish liability unless supported by independent evidence. The bench relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence to underline that such self-serving entries have limited evidentiary value.
In contrast, the respondents produced bank deposit receipts and oral evidence indicating payments made, some of which were not reflected in the appellant’s accounts. On an overall assessment, the court found the defence version more credible on the balance of probabilities.
Concluding that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof, the High Court held that the trial court had correctly applied the law in dismissing both the suit and the counterclaim. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title : Lalwani and Sons v. Firm Cheema Bricks and Others