V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

Challenging the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in R.A.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, reversing the order dated 30.04.2015 passed in O.A.No.179 of 2011 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, the 2nd defendant in O.A.No.179 of 2011, has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. Since the petitioner wanted to argue the above Civil Revision Petition as a party-in-person, he filed a memo dated 31.10.2018 before this Court seeking for such a permission. The petitioner is confined in the Central Prision – II, Puzhal, Chennai in respect of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Taking note of the averments stated in the memo filed by the petitioner, we have permitted him to appear in person and make his submissions in the Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, we directed the Prison Authorities to produce the petitioner before this Court enabling him to make his submissions in the Civil Revision Petition. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner was produced by the Prison Authorities and he made his submissions in person before this Court.

3.1 The petitioner is the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Company, viz., Subhiksha Trading Services Limited [1st defendant in O.A.No.179 of 2011]. The 2nd respondent availed financial assistance from the respondent No.1/bank and the petitioner, who is also the Managing Director of the borrower-company, stood as guarantor for the loan availed by the Company. Since the 2nd respondent committed default in repaying the loan, the respondent No.1/bank filed a suit in O.A.No.179 of 2011 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, claiming a total sum of Rs.4066,93,26,627.54 together with interest and for other reliefs.

3.2 The petitioner filed his counter and contested the Original Application. The respondent No.1/Bank also marked documents to prove their claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Among other documents, the respondent No.1 also produced the computer generated bank statement to prove their claim. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, relying upon Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, did not take into consideration the statement of accounts for the reason that the respondent No.1 did not produce the certificate along with the computer generated statement of accounts. In these circumstances, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, dismissed the Original Application.

3.3 Challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai in O.A.No.179 of 2011, the respondent No.1-bank filed an appeal in R.A.No.30 of 2015 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 19.02.2018, set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and allowed the appeal.

3.4 Challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the petitioner appearing in person, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.14 and Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8 and 15.

5.1 The petitioner appearing in person has raised the following two contentions:-

(i) The first contention is with regard to marking of Ex.A-58, Statement of Accounts, without the certificate. The petitioner, who is also the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Company relied upon Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and also Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The petitioner mainly contended that since the statement of accounts marked by the respondent No.1/bank were not accompanied by the certificate, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim made by the respondent No.1-bank, therefore, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal should not have interfered with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribun