JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— The learned officiating Subordinate Judge appears to us to have entirely misunderstood the ease of Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal, [1901] I.L.R., 23 All., 502.. In that case it was held that a mere acknowledgment of a debt signed by a debtor in the account book of his creditor, showing a balance standing against the debtor, the account not being a mutual account, is neither an account stated to which Article 64 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act applies, nor is it evidence of a new contract which can be the basis of a suit. In that case the plaintiff merely alleged that the defendant examined his account, acknowledged a balance to be due by him and affixed his signature to the plaintiff's account book. The defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint and the parties went to trial on the single issue whether or not the defendant had signed the plaintiff's account book as alleged. No evidence was given regarding the transactions recorded in the book. This decision in no way governs the present case. In the present case the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the defendants had money dealings with him and borrowed money from him from time to time and that on several occasions the defendant No. 1, as managing “member of the defendants” family, admitted and acknowledged the amount remaining due. The suit is a suit for moneys lent and advanced. The acknowledgment by the principal defendant is all acknowledgment of the accuracy of the details of the account as appearing in the plaintiff's books. As appears from the judgment of the learned Munsif, both the plaintiff and two other witnesses, Durga Das and Niladhar, were examined as witnesses to prove the plaintiff's claim, and the bahi-khata of the plaintiff was also produced. This evidence established to the satisfaction of the Court of first instance that the amount claimed was due. In view of the evidence and of the nature of the claim as disclosed in the plaint, it is difficult to understand how the lower appellate Court was misled by the case which was cited before it. His decision is based upon an entirely erroneous notion of the law and cannot be supported. In view of the evidence and of the nature of the claim as disclosed in the plaint, it is difficult to understand how the lower appellate Court was misled by the case which was cited before it. His decision is based upon an entirely erroneous notion of the law and cannot be supported. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts. 2. We have also to deal with an objection which was filed under section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents. No one appears to support this objection. It is dismissed with costs.