JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Plaintiffs are in appeal against the affirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar upholding the dismissal of their suit for realization of money from the Defendants. 2. The Plaintiffs laid claim for recovery of Rs. 1535.62 together with interest of Rs. 220.50 from the Defendants on the allegation that the Plaintiffs carry on business in the name of (sic) firm "M/s. Ganapati Ram's and Brothers" at Khurda. The Defendants also belong to a joint family and run a cloth shop at Nimapara. They took cloth worth Rs. 2635.62 on credit from the Plaintiffs and paid Rs. 1100/. In all as shown in the plaint. The suit was for the balance amount of Rs. 1535.62. 3. The Defendants contended that the business was of the Defendant No. 1 and not a partnership business with others. They denied the transactions and repayment of Rs. 1100/-. They contended that they had some business dealings with the Plaintiffs, but as they stopped transacting with the Plaintiffs from 1962 the suit has been instituted with a view to harassing them. 4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit by coming to the conclusion that the entries though genuine in the plain" tiffs' books of accounts were not corroborated. He came to find that the Defendants had not signed in the books. He, therefore, found that the Plaintiffs had not been able to establish their case. 5. The learned Appellate Judge found that the account books of the Defendants were not kept in due course of business and were not acceptable. He further found that the Plaintiffs' account books were genuine and had been maintained in the regular course of business. He, however, considered the evidence and came to hold that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the Defendants had received the goods. On these findings of his he affirmed the decree of the trial Court. The concurrent decree of the lower Appellate Court is subjected to Second Appeal. 6. Mr. Pal for the Plaintiffs contends that on the findings of the lower Appellate Court a decree for the claim should have been passed. The learned Appellate Judge in paragraph 5 of his judgment came to hold, The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the entries in the account book are not sufficient to charge a person. 6. Mr. Pal for the Plaintiffs contends that on the findings of the lower Appellate Court a decree for the claim should have been passed. The learned Appellate Judge in paragraph 5 of his judgment came to hold, The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the entries in the account book are not sufficient to charge a person. But he is not right in observing that there is no in de pan dent corroboration. There is independent corroboration by the evidence of p.w. 1, one of the Plaintiffs and p.ws. 2 and 3 the employees as to the transaction in the suit. Again, the sale memos Ext. 3 series made at the time of the transaction can also be taken as corroboration. The entries in the account book have to be considered by the "court along with the evidence to draw conclusion as to the truth of the transaction. Having come to this conclusion the learned Appellate Judge proceeded to examine the evidence and found the following two infirmities : (ii) The bills describe delivery of goods to have been made to 'a man'. A prudent man would certainly have ensured his claim by taking the signature of the recipient if the transaction was a credit one. No explanation was on record for the omission of the Defendant's signature. (b) While the witnesses p.ws. 1. and 2 said that the delivery of the goods was made over to the Defendants, the entries showed that the delivery was to 'a man'. The learned Appellate "Judge compared this entry with some others where in case delivery was personal it was shown as" Nije meaning to the buyer. 7. Section 34 of the Evidence Act provides, Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such : statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Mr. Pal contends that in this case the transactions as evidenced by entries in the account books which have been found by the lower Appellate Court to have been in due course have been supported by the oral evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2. The learned Appellate Judge has also rightly found that the bills support the entries. Mr. Pal contends that in this case the transactions as evidenced by entries in the account books which have been found by the lower Appellate Court to have been in due course have been supported by the oral evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2. The learned Appellate Judge has also rightly found that the bills support the entries. P.W. 1 has stated that in his presence the Defendant No. 1 took the cloths on 22-9-1963. He has identified the duplicate of the bill issued in support of the sale. P.W. 2 has similarly supported the other two transaction and has stated that the Defendant No. 1 took the Articles in his presence. The entry "a man" has been explained as indicating whether delivery was personal or through truck, train or otherwise. The learned Appellate Judge has not found any justification to discard the explanation. It is true that there are certain entries in the account books to show "Nije" that is, the buyer in person, and if "a man" also meant the buyer in person there was no justification for two separate entries. If the real purpose for making the entry is to show the nature of delivery it really makes no difference whether it is "a man" or the buyer himself. Due case seems not to have been taken at the time of entry and that is why though the nature of delivery has been similar different types of entries have been made. No reason has been given by the lower Appellate Court to reject the direct testimony of p.ws. 1, 2 and 3, who in their cross-examination have really not been challenged in regard to the evidence of supply of goods on credit to the Defendants. 8. This Court in two reported decisions Haribux Gouri Sankar Firm and Others Vs. Subhakaran Tulsiram and Others. and Kelu v. Hadibandhu 1967 C.L.T. 825, dealt with Section 34 of the evidence Act. It has been clearly indicated in those decisions that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree on the basis of the entries in regularly kept account books provided they are corroborated. The learned Appellate Judge found such corroboration. He did not find that the document was liable to be discarded for the two deficiencies indicated by him. The explanations given by the Plaintiffs on both the counts should have been accepted. Mr. The learned Appellate Judge found such corroboration. He did not find that the document was liable to be discarded for the two deficiencies indicated by him. The explanations given by the Plaintiffs on both the counts should have been accepted. Mr. Das for the Respondent contended that the bills were the primary entries and since the other books were on the basis of those bills it was not open to the Plaintiffs to rely upon the subsidiary entries in the absence of the primary entry. The entries seem to be contemporaneous and since by oral evidence from persons with direct knowledge the entries have now been supported and there is no serious challenge in cross-examination to such evidence, I do not think the learned Appellate Judge was right in withholding the decree in favour of the Plaintiff. The conclusion reached in the lower. Appellate Court has omitted to give effect to the provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. 9. I would accordingly allow the appeal and hold that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as claimed. The Plaintiffs' suit shall, therefore, be decreed with costs throughout. The second appeal is allowed.