JUDGMENT
N.K. Mody, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1993, passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 3-B/90 the present appeal has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant which is a nationalised bank, filed a suit against the respondents on 4-7-1984 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 43,506/- alleging that the loan of Rs. 14,285/- was sanctioned on 24-12-1980 to the respondent No. 1 for construction of Well and purchase of Diesel Engine and Pump sets, on his application dated 12-10-1980. After execution of the documents on 24-12-1980, a sum of Rs. 8,285/- and Rs. 2000/- were disbursed to the respondent No. 1 on 29-12-1980 and 6-1-1981 respectively. It was further alleged that since the loan amount was for agricultural purposes, therefore, the same was repayable along with interest within a period of 5 years in 10 six monthly instalments. It was alleged that respondents No. 2 to 4 stood as sureties for the aforesaid loan amount. Respondent No. 1 also mortgaged his property on 20-12-1980 and submitted a declaration under the provisions of “M. P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakriya Upbandh (Bank) Adhiniyam, 1974”, on 24-12-1980. Further case of the appellant is that again a C/C Limit up to Rs. 2000/- was given to the respondent No. 1 on his application dated 21-12-1980 for purchase of seeds against which a sum of Rs. 650/- was disbursed on 22-12-1980 and a sum of Rs. 1300/- were disbursed on 27-2-1981. Financial assistance which was provided for purchase of seeds was returnable after the Rabi crops.
3. Further case of the appellant is that upon the application of the respondent No. 1, C/C Limit was provided to the respondent No. 1 up to Rs. 15,000/- for carrying on the business of Diesel Pump Sets for which, documents were executed on 24-11-1978 and rest of the respondents stood sureties. The case of the appellant was that on 29-12-1981 in all the three accounts, the respondent No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. , 1000/- through his brother and on 31-12-1982, the respondent No. 1 executed the balance confirmation, whereby the respondent No. 1 acknowledged the outstanding balance in all the three accounts. Since the loan amount was not paid in spite of notice of demand, therefore, the suit was filed.
4. The suit was contested by the respondents. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 7-7-1993, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank contends that the learned trial Court committed error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The contention of the appellant is that so far as the term loan for construction of Well and purchase of Diesel Engine and Pump Set is concerned, the loan itself was disbursed on 29-12-1980, which was repayable in 5 years and it was further secured by deed of mortgage, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the suit was barred by limitation on 4-7-1984. Further submission of the appellant is that so far as the other two accounts of C/C Limits are concerned, in both the accounts, the confirmation of balance was executed by the respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1982 and partial amount was deposited on 1-10-1983, therefore, it cannot be said that for these two accounts also, the suit was barred by limitation on 4-7-1984.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court committed error in holding that as to why one document of confirmation of balance was executed for three different accounts. Similarly, the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has held that in the C/C Limit account; against the execution of document of Rs. 2000/-, why a sum of Rs. 1950/- was disbursed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below was impressed by the fact that why the respondent No. 1 was not given the Government subsidy of 33% against the loan. Shri B.S. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the learned trial Court had rightly held that the suit was barred by law of limitation.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the record Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Act”, deals with the effect of acknowledgment in writing and payment on account of debt. For the sake of convenience, relevant part of aforesaid Sections are as under:
18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing….
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or light is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) …
19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy —
Where payment on account of debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.
8. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, Sr. Adv. placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the matter of Hiralal v. Badkulal, confirmed in the matter of Syndicate Bank v. R. Veeraima, wherein it was observed that an unqualified acknowledgment of liability as in the present case by a party not only saves the period of limitation but also gives a cause of action to the plaintiffs to base its claim,
9. So far as term loan account is concerned, since the amount of loan was payable in 5 years in 10 six monthly instalments, therefore, by no method of calculation it can be said that the suit was barred by limitation on the date of filing of the suit. So far as other two accounts are concerned, basically they are C/C Limit accounts and if the balance is confirmed by one document, then there may be a procedural illegality, but so far as extension of period of limitation is concerned, they are sufficient. The approach of the learned Court below that there should be separate confirmation of balance for different-different accounts is not correct. For the purpose of fulfilling these requirements of law, the approach of the Court ought to have seen as to whether the document of confirmation of balance was executed or not and not that instead of different-different documents why one document was executed, Thus for the purpose of meeting out the requirement of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, Exhibit P/20 whereby the balance were confirmed, is sufficient. So far as part payment of the amount on 1-10-1983 is concerned, on this date Rs. 300/- has been deposited in term loan account, Rs. 300/- in C.C. limit (seeds account) and Rs. 400/- in another C/C limit account. The appellant has filed the statement of account of all the three accounts, which has been exhibited as Ex. P/32 to P/ 34. These accounts are duly proved by the appellant. A certificate is also endorsed by the Bank at the bottom of the statement of account, which reads as under:–
This is to certify that it is a true copy of ledger and entries herein are certified in one of the ordinary book of the Bank and were made in usual and ordinary course of business and that book is still in the custody of the Bank.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ex. P/32 to P/34 are the certified copies of the statement of account. Learned counsel submits that “certified copy” is defined under the provisions of the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, which reads as under:….
2(8). “Certified copy” means a copy of any entry in the books of a bank together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true ropy of such entry, that such entry is contained in one of the ordinary books of the bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that such book is still in the custody of the bank and where the copy was obtained by a mechanical or other process which In itself ensured the accuracy of the copy, a further certificate to that effect, but where the book from which such copy was prepared has been destroyed in the usual course of the, bank’s business after the date on which the copy had been so prepared, a further certificate to that effect, each such certificate being dated and subscribed by the principal accountant or manager of the bank with his name and official title.
11. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on Section 4 of the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891. Which deals with mode of proof of entries in bankers’ books. Section 4 of the Act, 1891. reads thus:–
4. Subject to the provisions of this Act. a certified copy of any entry in a bankers book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima-fucie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.
As per Section 4 of the Act, if a statement of account is submitted duly certified by the Bank Officer, then the entries of the said account has to be treated as sufficient evidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of account. On 1-10-1983, a sum of Rs. 1000/- has been deposited in all the three accounts. Learned counsel submits that learned trial Court has rightly held that the civil cases are being decided on probabilities. There can be none else except the defendant No. 1 or his agent who could have deposited the same in the loan account. Since it is found that respondent No. 1 has executed the document Ex. P/20. which is document relating to confirmation of balance, therefore, there is no necessity to take the assistance of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, for extending the period of limitation.
12. So far as the grant of subsidy is concerned, the appellant cannot be blamed for it because the subsidy is being granted by the Government and if the subsidy is not granted, then it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 is absolved from its liability to repay the loan.
13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal stands allowed and the Judgment and decree passed by the Court below is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 43,506/-along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. Respondents are further liable to pay the cost of the litigation throughout.