LAHIRI, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of Mr. Justice P. B. Mukharji in a proceeding under Section 45-M read with Section 45-D of the Banking Companies Act, by which His Lordship has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 21,804/5/- together with interest. The respondent Bank filed a petition under the Banking Companies Act for the recovery of this amount on the ground that it was due to the respondent upon a mutual open and current account. Along with the application of the respondent Bank it filed a list of debtors as annexure A to the petition. The case was tried on affidavits as no party asked the learned judge to set it down for trial on evidence. No oral evidence was taken by the learned judge in this case and no judgment was delivered. "the entry in the minute book runs as follows :"decree for Rs. 23671/12/7 Int. , Int. Int. on judgment and costs. Mr. Pal files C/c statement of account Re : No. 3 Decree as prayed Int. Int. Int. on Judgment and costs. Decretal amount to be paid by 4 equal annual instalments, First Instalment by 3rd December 1958 and thereafter by 3rd December every year. In default of one instalment the decretal amount then due shall be payable. "against this order the appellant has brought the appeal. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has raised two points before us. ( 3 ) THE first point urged in support of the appeal is that the certified copy of statement of accounts regarding the third debtor on the list of debtors (i. e. the Oriental Plastics, of which the appellant is the sole proprietor) has not been proved according to law and it has not also been marked as an exhibit in the case. It is true that the certified copy has not been marked as an exhibit, but we sent for the original and the original has been produced before us from the file of this case. The entry in the minute book shows that it was tendered on the date of hearing. We have no doubt in our mind that the omission to mark this document with an exhibit number was due to some inadvertence. The entry in the minute book shows that it was tendered on the date of hearing. We have no doubt in our mind that the omission to mark this document with an exhibit number was due to some inadvertence. The attorney for the respondent Bank probably did not deposit the filing fee through mistake and that may be the reason why this document was not marked with an exhibit number. The attorney for the respondent Bank, however, undertakes before us through learned counsel Mr. A. K. Sen to deposit the finding fee by tomorrow. This certified copy was tendered in Court without any objection by the appellant and it is settled law that when copies of document are admitted in the court of first instance without objection, no objection as to the mode of its proof can be raised for the first time in appeal. The certified copy of the statement of accounts which has been filed by the respondent Bank hears at its bottom the certificate of the General Manager of the respondent Bank to the effect that the entries were true copies of entries in one of the ordinary books of the Bank and were made in the usual and ordinary course of business and that such books were still in the custody of the Bank. Upon this endorsement there is hardly any doubt that the certified copy becomes evidence under Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. I accordingly hold that this certified copy was rightly admitted into evidence by the trial judge and as there was no objection about its mode of proof, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise this point for the first time in appeal. ( 4 ) THIS statement of accounts was moreover referred in paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Jogesh Chandra Pal, the Superintendent of the Bank affirmed on the 30th May, 1956, where he states that he craves leave to refer to that statement of accounts at the hearing of the case. The appellant also had inspection of the statement of accounts because the appellant states in his affidavit affirmed on the 20th March, 1950, that he does not admit the correctness of the statement of accounts of the Bank and in particular he disputes' the items about interest contained therein. The appellant also had inspection of the statement of accounts because the appellant states in his affidavit affirmed on the 20th March, 1950, that he does not admit the correctness of the statement of accounts of the Bank and in particular he disputes' the items about interest contained therein. In view of all these facts I find no substance in the first point raised in support of the appeal. ( 5 ) THE second point raised in support of the appeal is that the entires in the certified copy of the statement of accounts are not sufficient by themselves to charge the appellant with liability under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the entries in the certified copy of the statement of accounts were the only foundation for the order made against the appellant this contention might have some substance, but it appears from the affidavit of Jogesh Chandra Pal affirmed on the 30th May, 1956, that the Bank claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 21,804/5/- on the basis of the mutual open and current accounts as evidenced by those entries. In paragraph 9 of that affidavit Jogesh Chandra Pal further states that the statement of accounts is kept in the usual course of the business of the Bank and credits and debits are duly posted and that the facts and circumstances with regard to the dealings between the appellant and the Bank had Keen substantially and correctly stated in a nutshell in the statement of accounts. The statement of the appellant as contained in his affidavit dated the 20th March, 1956, to the effect that he does not admit the correctness of the statement of accounts of the Bank and in particular the items of interest contained therein show that he was not very serious about the accuracy of the entries in the statement of accounts with regard to the amounts withdrawn by him, and that he was disputing the entries relating to interest. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the learned Judge was justified in making an order of payment against the appellant on the basis of the statement made in the affidavit of Jogesh Chandra Pal corroborated by the entries in the certified copy of the statement of accounts. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the learned Judge was justified in making an order of payment against the appellant on the basis of the statement made in the affidavit of Jogesh Chandra Pal corroborated by the entries in the certified copy of the statement of accounts. The rate of interest is stated in the third column of the list of debtors, and that rate is not disputed before us, and it has not been shown before us that the interest awarded in favour of the Bank is in excess of what has been stated in the third column of the list of debtors. ( 6 ) AT the conclusion of his argument the learned advocate for the appellant wants us to place it on record that he also wants to urge that the respondent having ceased to be a Banking Company on the 25th January, 1955, is not entitled to the benefit of the summary procedure prescribed by Sections 45-D and 45-M of the Banking Companies Act. I have discussed the point of law arising out of this point in some detail in my judgment in Kalipada Sinha v. Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. . A. F. O. O. No. 198 of 1958. For the reasons given in that judgment I cannot accept this question of law as correct, and I may also add that the affidavit dated the 6th August, 1958, which was the foundation of the appellant's argument in Appeal No. 198 of 1958 was not filed in the trial court in this case. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent took a preliminary point to the effect that the appeal is barred by limitation because it was out of time by one day. We have been taken through the notes made by the Deputy Registrar, who was of the opinion that the appeal was out of time by one day. The Registrar, however, made an endorsement that the appeal might be registered subject to objection if any at the time of hearing of the appeal. Registrar presumably thought that the appeal was within time but allowed the respondent an opportunity of questioning his decision at the hearing of the appeal. The Registrar, however, made an endorsement that the appeal might be registered subject to objection if any at the time of hearing of the appeal. Registrar presumably thought that the appeal was within time but allowed the respondent an opportunity of questioning his decision at the hearing of the appeal. Having regard to the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was only for one day, we have thought fit to condone the delay, and we have heard the learned advocate for the appellant on the merits. Since however we find no substance in any of the points urged on the merits, I would direct that this appeal be and the same is dismissed with costs.