Certified copies of accounts made under Section 3 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 are admissible in evidence and can be relied upon. However, where the entries are not admitted, it is the duty of the Bank to produce evidence in support of the entries to show that the money was advanced as indicated therein.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. This is a defendants second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiff-respondent and ordering the recovery of Rs. 1,83,737.83 from the defendant -appellants.

2. Appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar Saxena, who was the sole proprietor of firm appellant No. 1 M/s Shashi Addi-Chem Industries, Faridabad, was an unemployed Chemical Engineer and in accordance with the Governments policy to rehabilitate such unemployed technically qualified individuals, raised a Term Loan of Rs. 47,000/- besides obtaining a Cash Credit Book Debt Limit of Rs. 33,000/- and cash Credit Hypothetication Limit of Rs. 50,000/- from the Punjab National Bank (Hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on November 18, 1980. The requisite pronotes and agreements were duly executed on November 18, 1980, whereas a guarantee was also given by appellant No. 3 Smt. Savitri Devi on February 27, 1981. As the industrial unit fell into difficulty, it was unable to pay back the instalments of the loan as stipulated in the agreements with the result that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount of about Rs. 1,83,737.83 inclusive of interest. While resisting the suit, the appellants admitted that Raj Kumar Saxena was the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm and had availed of the facilities from the bank and had also executed the relevant documents for that purpose. It was claimed that the amounts loaned by the Bank had been returned and that the statement of accounts that had been tendered in evidence did not reflect the correct position. It was also averred that the Industrial unit set up by appellant No. 1 was not viable for the reason that the Bank itself defaulted in the payment of instalments to it as per the agreements signed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is a bank duly constituted under the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970, and this suit has been filed through a duly authorised person ? OPP.

(2) Whether the various loan facilities as alleged in the plaint were granted to the defendants No. 1 and 2 against the guarantee of defendant No. 3 and the defendant executed the various documents in favour of the plaintiff Bank in consideration thereof ? OPP.

(3) To what amount the plaintiff-Bank is entitled ? OPD.

(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 ? OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing of this suit.? OPD.

(6) Relief.

The trial Court returned its findings on the crucial issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Bank with the result that the suit of the plaintiff respondents was decreed. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by first appellate Court. Hence the present appeal. The courts below found as a matter of fact that appellant No. 2 had taken the loans in question and that the fault in repayment of the loan had been committed. It has also held that the documents executed by appellant No. 2 to secure the loans had been validly executed and his assertion that they had been procured from him under threat was also disbelieved. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants which was based on Chandradhar Goswami and Ors. v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 S.C. 1058, that mere reproduction of the statements of accounts without corroborative and reliable evidence to show their accuracy could not be relied upon was repelied by stating that appellant No. 2 had himself admitted that the loans in question had been taken and no further evidence was required.

3. Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, counsel for the appellants, has raised only one argument before me based upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. He has urged that the Supreme Court had positively held that where the statement of accounts was disputed with regard to the factum that the loan had been taken or wi