RSA 266/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The respondents as plaintiffs instituted Money Suit No.2/2001 in the Court of th e learned Civil Judge, North Lakhimpur for a decree against the present appellan t and another as defendants for Rs.3,15,518/- with interest @ 12.5% per annum wi th effect from 1st January, 2001 till the date of realization contending inter a lia that the Cash Credit loan upto Rs.1,30,000/- was sanctioned by the responden t Bank to the defendant No.1/ appellant herein on 19th October, 1990 for carryin g out the contract work in Public Works Department and after compliance of all t he formalities and executing necessary documents, operation of which loan starte d with effect from 23rd October, 1990 from the Cash Credit Account standing in t he name of the present appellant and out of which though the defendant No.1/appe llant paid altogether Rs.88,082/- on different dates, the remaining amount has n ot been paid. It has also been contended that the plaintiffs Bank on 21st Janua ry, 1992 took one vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01/9972 belonging to the ap pellant/ defendant No.1 on monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- with condition that 50% of the monthly rent will be credited to the Cash Credit Account and accordingly Rs .10,000/- was credited to the Cash Credit Account for the rent of the vehicle an d thus an amount of Rs.88,082/- was deposited in the said Cash Credit Account le aving the balance with interest calculated upto 31st December, 2000 amounting to Rs.3,15,518/-. It has also been contended that the defendant No.1/appellant ha s acknowledged the debt by executing the balance confirmation from time to time, the last being 30th September, 1999. The appellant/defendant No.1 contested the said suit by filing written statement . While admitting avail of the loan facilities and also opening of the Cash Cre dit Account, it has been pleaded that only an amount of Rs.31,419/- remains as o utstanding against the loan amount. The further contention is that against the monthly rent payable in respect of the aforesaid vehicle though 50% of such mont hly rent was to be deposited in the Cash Credit Account, nothing has been done b y the plaintiffs Bank. The suit was also contested on the point of limitation. The learned Court below upon appreciation of the evidences on record framed the following issues for consideration and decision:- 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether this suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether this suit is maintainable? 4. Whether defendant No.1, took loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the Plaintiff bank on 23.10.1990 on condition to repay the loan with interest @ 17% P.A.? 5. Whether the defendant No.2 has stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan t o the plaintiff bank for the defendant No.1? 6. Whether the defendants have defaulted to repay the same? 7. Whether the sum of Rs.3,15,518/- becomes due after adjustment the rent of the Car which was payable to the defendant for taking the Car on rent by the plaint iff bank? 8. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff bank is entitled? The plaintiffs in support of the claim adduced one witness and proved a number o f documents including the statement of account being Exhibit-19 certified under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, and also the documents confirming the bal ance executed by the defendant No.1/ appellant being Exhibits-13 to 18. The def endant No.1/appellant has also examined one witness in support of his contention . The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has rejecte d the contention of the defendant No.1/appellant that the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred. It has been found by the learned Trial Court that the suit fil ed by the plaintiffs Bank is within time, in view of the balance confirmation (E xhibits-13 to 18). It has also been found that the statements of accounts (Exhi bit-19) being certified as required under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, is admiss ible in evidence. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, decreed the suit for R s.3,15,518/- with interest. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1/ appellant preferred Money Appeal No.2/2001 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur, which was eventually tran sferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur and was decided vide judgment dated 30th April, 2009 dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant No.1/appellant and by affirming the judgm ent and decree passed by the learned Trial Court on 16th June, 2007. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dutta, learned c ounsel appearing for the respondents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiffs being barred by time and Exhibit-19, i.e. the statement of accoun t, being not admissible in evidence the learned Court below ought not to have de creed the suit of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the learned counsel appear ing for the respondent Bank submits that both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the suit of the plaintiffs is within the time allowed unde r the law and, therefore, not barred by time. It has also been submitted that t he statements of account was certified as required under the Bankers’ Books Evid ence Act and hence the learned Courts below have rightly placed reliance on Exhi bit-19, apart from Exhibits-13 to 18 (balance confirmation by the defendant No.1 /appellant) in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs Bank, which does not require any interference in second appeal, as no substantial question of law is involve d. Perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below reveal tha t the finding of fact relating to the question of limitation, as raised by the a ppellant/defendant No.1, has been recorded by the learned Trial Court, which was also affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. It also appears that the d efendant No.1/appellant has executed the balance confirmations vide Exhibits-13 to 18 from time to time, the last being on 30th September, 1999. Taking into ac count the aforesaid documents, the plaintiffs’ suit is well within the time and hence such finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below needs no interfe rence in second appeal. Relating to Exhibit-19, i.e. the statement of account, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respond ent Bank, it appears that the said statement of account has been certified, as r equired under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act and as such, is admissible in evid ence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that no substantial questi on is involved and hence the appeal is dismissed.