Judgment :- 1. Appellant is the defendant. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,000/- alleged to be due to him as the balance of purchase price in respect of a lorry KLK 4265 sold by him to the defendant. In Second Appeal 326 of 1975 this Court gave an opportunity to prove the relevant entries in the diaries produced by the defendant. The case was remitted to the Sab Court. The Sub Judge after considering the evidence allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant issued Ext. P-1 cheque for the amount due to him and that on presentation it was dishonoured by the bank. Exts. P-2 and P-4 would prove the fact that the cheque was dishonoured. In the written statement defendant contended inter-alia that he paid the amount due to the plaintiff and he could not obtain back the cheque as it was not readily available with the plaintiff and as he promised to return it later. 3. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that even if the relevant entries in Exts. D-1 to D-4 diaries are proved it will not in any way be sufficient to establish the defendant's case as the self serving nature of it cannot be overlooked. A private diary regularly kept and containing records and facts contemporaneously made may be of some value. It can be used for contradicting or corroborating a witness or to refresh his memory as provided under S.144,157 and 159 of the Evidence Act. But such user does not make the document itself evidence. It may also come under S.32(2) if the requirements of that Section are satisfied. But the entries in the diaries cannot be treated as evidence of the facts stated in it in favour of the person who has made it as against the opposite party. 4. S.21 postulates that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest. Subject to three exceptions S.21 provides that the admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf the person who makes them or by his representative in interest. 4. S.21 postulates that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest. Subject to three exceptions S.21 provides that the admissions cannot be proved by or on behalf the person who makes them or by his representative in interest. The exceptions are: (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under S.32. (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable. (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. Apart from the exceptions S.21 contains two propositions. Firstly, an admission is relevant and may be proved against the author of it and his representative in interest. The second proposition is that generally an admission cannot be proved on behalf of the person who made it. It will be indeed ridiculous to allow parties to support their contentions by their own admissions. Such a procedure would be extremely unsafe and would tantamount to complete negation of fair trial and judicious disposal of cases. Illustration (a) to S.21 makes the position crystal clear. Illustration (a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged." If a person wants to rely on his own statements or admissions to give strength to his case be can with tittle effort create admissions or statements beforehand or by suborning witnesses to speak to having beard him make such statements. Possibility of concocting entries in the diaries cannot be ruled out altogether. Possibility of concocting entries in the diaries cannot be ruled out altogether. The position is different with regard to regularly kept books of account. Under S.34 entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire But they alone are not sufficient to saddle any person with liability. That being the position with regard to books of account regularly kept in the course of business, entries in the diaries cannot be given any greater weight or importance. Obviously diary entries cannot have any better sanctity than regularly kept books of account. Unlike books of account regularly kept in the course of business, entries in the diaries can be written at one's convenience to suit one's case. In the absence of any corroborative evidence entries in the diaries produced by the defendant are hardly sufficient to prove his case. DWI has admitted in cross-examination that he is an income tax payee, that he has maintained accounts properly and that it will disclose details of the transaction concerning the purchase of lorry. The best evidence would have been the production of the accounts. Defendant has not produced the same. The learned Sub Judge was justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit. There is no merit in the Second Appeal and hence it is dismissed, with costs.