2003 (9) TMI 815 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether document EX.P5 dated 19.11.1974 is an acknowledgment of liability on the basis of which a decree for recovery of the amount can be passed against the defendant.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed on the basis of the statement of accounts even though the evidence of the plaintiff has not been rebutted by the defendant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acknowledgment of Liability (EX.P5):
The plaintiff argued that the defendant acknowledged their liability on 15.11.1974, as indicated by the handwritten note on EX.P5 stating "present outstanding Rs. 9551.91." However, the court found that this handwritten note was not proven to be written by the defendant. Evidence from both plaintiff witnesses (PW1 and PW2) indicated uncertainty about who wrote the note, and the defendant denied it was in their handwriting. The court concluded that the writing on EX.P5 was added later and was not part of the original letter. Therefore, EX.P5 could not be considered an acknowledgment of liability by the defendant.

2. Decree Based on Statement of Accounts (EX.PX):
The plaintiff's suit was also based on the statement of accounts (EX.PX). The defendant had received a copy of this statement before filing their written statement but did not dispute any specific entries in it. The court examined whether the statement of accounts was admissible evidence under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, despite lacking a date on the certification. It was determined that the omission of the date was a directory provision, not mandatory, and thus did not render the statement inadmissible.

The court referenced the case of Chandradhar Goswami and Ors. v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., which required corroborative evidence for entries in bank statements when disputed. However, in this case, the defendant did not dispute specific entries, only the overall liability and the manner of the sale of pledged goods and machinery. The court found that the plaintiff's witnesses (PW1 and PW2) sufficiently proved the entries in the statement of accounts, and the defendant failed to provide evidence to rebut this.

Conclusion:
The court held that the statement of accounts (EX.PX) was admissible and sufficient to establish the defendant's liability. The plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 6240.59 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit until realization. The appeal was accepted, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.