The court relied on the evidence provided by the plaintiff's officer and the provisions of the Banking Companies Act to grant a decree in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the overdraft balance.

JUDGEMENT :- This suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,317-04 p. as money due by the defendant to the plaintiff on an overdraft account, interest and costs. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant maintained a current account with Metropolitan Bank Ltd., with overdraft facilities. On the 6th February, 1964 by virtue of the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, all the assets and liabilities of the Metropolitan Bank Ltd. were transferred and vested in the plaintiff bank. Thereafter the defendant became a constituent of the plaintiff bank and continued to operate the said current account which had been transferred from the Metropolitan Bank Ltd. to the plaintiff bank at its branch office at 7. Chowringhee Road. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to withdraw on the said account. The plaintiff also paid moneys to the defendant or at the defendant's request or incurred expenses on the defendant's account. By documents dated 29th May, 1959, 15th December, 1959 and 9th May, 1961, all of which have been made exhibits at the trial, the defendant agreed to pay interest initially at the rate of 71/2 per cent per annum and subsequently at the rate of 8 per cent per annum with effect from 9th May, 1961 with monthly rests.

2. The plaintiffs case is that the said account maintained by the defendant at the plaintiff's branch office was a mutual open and current account.

3. Mr. Satiranjan Patitundi, an officer of the plaintiff bank, produced a statement of the defendant's account with

the plaintiff bank duly certified by the branch manager under the Bankers Books Evidence Act and deposed to

the correctness of the said statement. It appears that a sum of Rs. 10,317.04 was due and owing by the defendant

to the plaintiff as on 30th November, 1965.

4. By two letters dated the 13th September, 1963 and 29th April, 1964, copies of which have been made Exhibits 'J' and 'K' the plaintiff demanded payment of the overdraft balance then outstanding but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same.

5. It only remains for me to add that although the defendant filed a written statement, he chose not to appear at

the trial. Having regard to the evidence given by Mr. Satiranjan Patitundi I am satisfied that the plaintiff's claim

ought to succeed.

6. There will, therefore, be a decree for Rs. 10,317-04 p. interim interest at 4 per cent and interest on judgement at 6 per cent per annum and costs.