A copy of an account book is inadmissible in evidence when the original is not produced, as per Order XIII Rule 4 and 5 of the C.P.C. Section 59 of the Contract Act applies to liability for rental arrears, as arrears of rent constitute a debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

JUDGMENT : This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.

2. The trial court decreed the suit for the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, and in appeal by the defendants the lower appellate court merely modified the trial court decree in respect of the arrears of rent.

3. Both the courts below have found that the defendants had failed to pay the arrears of rent due for more than three months within one month of service upon them of a notice of demand. The defendants contended that they had paid an amount of Rs. 325/- to the plaintiff on different dates, and led evidence in support of this assertion. It was urged that if this amount was taken into account, it would be found that they were not in default. The evidence in this behalf included a copy of entries made in an account book maintained by the defendant, The original account book, however, was not produced in court and all that was filed was a copy of the entries. The courts below held that the copy was inadmissible in evidence when the original account book had not been produced. Learned counsel for the defendants points out that the copy has been exhibited as Ex. A5 and that there is nothing to show that it was not a true copy. Upon careful consideration, it seems to me that the courts below were fully justified in holding that the copy was inadmissible and in declining to consider it as evidence. The mere fact that a document bears an exhibit number does not necessarily mean that it has been admitted in evidence after complying with the formalities of law. The question whether the copy was admissible was raised in the trial court itself. It was open to that court and also to the lower appellate court in appeal to consider whether the copy could be treated as admissible evidence. Order XIII Rule 4 of the C.P.C. provides for the making of certain endorsements on a document which has been admitted in evidence, and such endorsements have to be made upon a copy where the original entry is contained in a book or account and has been admitted in evidence. Order XIII R. 5 provides for the manner in which a copy may be taken on the record. Sub-rule (1) declares that where a document admitted in evidence is an entry in an account book in current use the party on whose behalf the account book is produced may furnish a copy of the entry, and sub-rule (3) requires that where such a copy is furnished the court must, after causing the copy to be examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in O. VII R. 17, mark the entry and cause the account book in which it occurs to be returned to the person producing it. It is plain from an examination of these provisions that the party relying upon an entry in an account book must produce the account book in court, and if the account book Is one hi current use, he may furnish a copy of the entry on which he relies and after that copy has been examined, compared and certified with the original entry, the court will mark the entry and return the account book. Unless the original account book is produced before the court, no copy of any entry contained in that account book can be entertained in evidence. It is apparent that the account book was never produced. Learned counsel relies upon the oral testimony of the defendants showing that the account book was in their possession in court, but that is quite a different thing from producing the account book in court. The account book must be produced and the entry must be marked before the account book is returned. This was not done at all. Learned counsel then points out that if this was not done it was because of an omission on the part of the court and that the defendants should not be allowed to suffer for such omission. It is not possible to accept this contention. The defendants relied upon the entries in the account book and the burden lay upon them to satisfy the provisions of O. XIII R. 5 before they could entitle themselves to p