This first appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 4.5.96 (decree signed on 9.5 .96) passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Golaghat (now redesignated as Civil Judge, Senior Division) in Title Suit No. 37 of 1987 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for realisation of a sum of Rs. 72,386.05 only with interest from the defendant-respondents. 2. I have heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. AK Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts briefly are that the appellant Bank on being approached by the defendants -respondents has accorded financial accommodation to the extent of Rs. 25,000 only by way of cash credit limit which the defendant-respondents availed of and accordingly, an agreement for cash credit was executed between the appellant Bank and the defendant-respondents on 23.2.73. But after availing the said cash credit facilities, the defendant respondents felled to make repayment of the said amount of Rs. 25,000 and ultimately the liability of the said payment on the part of the defendant-respondents has been calculated with interest at Rs. 72,386.05 upto 28.2.86. The respondents having felled to pay the said dues to the appellant-Bank on demand, the plaintiff-appellant Bank filed the Title Suit No. 37 of 1987 against the defendant-respondents for recovery of Rs. 72,386.05 only. The defendant-respondents appeared and contested the suit by submitting the written statement. 4. The trial Court upon perusal of the pleadings of both sides framed as many as six issues. Taking into consideration of Issue No. 1 ie whether there was a cause of action for the suit, the learned trial Judge upon careful perusal of the materials available on records by his impugned judgment dated 4.5.96 held that there was no cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs. 5.1 have perused the impugned judgment dated 4.5.96 and also the records available including Ext 38, the statements of accounts. On careful scrutiny of the same, I have found that there is no illegality committed by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the suit holding that there was no cause of action for the suit. 6. The Ext 38, the statement of accounts clearly shows that on 23.2.73 in the column of withdrawal an amount of Rs. 32,399.97 was shown against the column particulars whereas it was mentioned as "To from old a/c". 6. The Ext 38, the statement of accounts clearly shows that on 23.2.73 in the column of withdrawal an amount of Rs. 32,399.97 was shown against the column particulars whereas it was mentioned as "To from old a/c". Thus it is apparently clear from Ext 38 that the appellant had amalgamated two accounts of the respondents whereas the title suit in question related only to the account of cash credit accommodation to the extent of Rs. 25,000 to the defendant-respondents on 23.2.73. It can be safely said that on 23.2.73 when the cash credit facilities of Rs. 25,000 was granted to the defendant-respondents, on the statement of accounts on 23.2.73 the said amount of Rs. 25,000 ought to have been shown on withdrawal column. On a pointed query made from this Court, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant Bank failed to show as to how the amount of Rs. 32,399.97 was shown as withdrawal on 23.2.73 when in feet on 23.2.73 an amount of Rs. 25,000 was granted as cash credit to the defendant-respondents. The appellant Bank's case in the title suit based solely on Rs. 25,000 granted to the defendant-respondents as a loan by way of cash credit facilities on 23.2.73. For better appreciation of the discussion on the findings of the learned trial judge relating to Issue No. 1 cause of action' it will be pertinent to quote the relevant portion of the findings of the learned trial Judge on that point and the same are as follows : "11. Now the question is whether Rs. 72,386.05 became due by the defendants to the plaintiff on account of their availing the cash credit facility of Rs. 25,000 granted to them by the plaintiff from 23.2.73? The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the suit amount are due from the defendants to the plaintiff on 28.2.86 as against the cash credit facilities of Rs. 25,000 granted to them by the plaintiff Bank. T o substantiate the plaintiffs claim, they submitted Ext 38 the Statement of Account which is already decided as erroneous, ft is an admitted fact that the Ext 38 prepared on the basis of two accounts of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in his plaint nowhere stated about the existence of any other account apart from the present cash credit account of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in his plaint nowhere stated about the existence of any other account apart from the present cash credit account of defendant No. 1. Neither in the plaint nor in the statement of PW1, it is mentioned about the existence of any old account of defendant No. 1. Had there been any such terms of agreement, the plaintiff can not claim other amount paid by the plaintiff in this present suit without describing the nature of the said loan in the plaint. Moreover in the present suit, plaintiff case rests solely on Rs. 25,000 granted to defendant No. 1 as a loan by way of cash credit facilities on 23.2.73. 12. The defendant No. 1 by his letters from Ext 22 to Ext 33 revived his cash credit account of Rs. 25,000 dated 23.2.73 and nothing beyond it. No previous account or debt had been revived by the defendant No. 1. There is no such letter of authority authorising the plaintiff to include his outstanding dues again any other account to be included in the instant cash credit account of Rs. 25,000. Had there been any such agreement between the parties in that case too, the plaintiff is not exempted from submitting the statement of account of that old account of defendant No. 1 before Court. Under section 4 of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, plaintiff's bound to produce statement of all accounts on which their claims rests and in this case, the plaintiff did not produce the statement of account of the old account of defendant No. 1. 13. Ext 9 to Ext 20 are the Balance Confirmation by defendant No. 1. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that balance has confirmed by the defendant No. 1 is due to the cash credit account of Rs. 25,000 beginning from 23.2.73. But from Ext 38, it appears that these balances confirmed by the defendant No. 1 were due to plaintiff because of amalgamation of two accounts, cash credit account of Rs. 25,000 and old account of unknown amount. Moreover, these balances were confirmed by defendant No. f-only not by defendant No. 2. 14-. Defendant No. 2 stood guarantor for repayment of the loan granted by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 by way of cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and he created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff by depositing his Title Deed. Moreover, these balances were confirmed by defendant No. f-only not by defendant No. 2. 14-. Defendant No. 2 stood guarantor for repayment of the loan granted by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 by way of cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and he created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff by depositing his Title Deed. In the plaint, it is clearly stated that defendant No. 2 created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff bank for the extent of Rs. 25,000 only. No where it is stated in the plaint that defendant No. 2 created equitable mortgage with respect to any old by account of defendant No. l. The security provided by defendant No. 2 is for cash credit facilities of Rs. 25,000 only and not beyond that. The mortgage created by defendant No. 2 does not cover any other loan advanced by plaintiff to defendant No. l. So, defendant No. 2 is liable for repayment of the amount recoverable till 28.2.86 for the grant of cash credit facilities of Rs. 25,000 to defendant No. 1 Now the amount shown recoverable till 28.2.86 as Rs. 72,386.05 But this amount is not calculated on the principal sum of Rs. 25,000 granted to defendant No. 1 on 23.2.73 which is available by defendant No. 1 by executing the pronote. This suit amount calculated by amalgamating other account of defendant No. 1 for which defendant No. 2 created no mortgage and did not stood as guarantor. Therefore, plaintiff failed to separate grains from the chaff. Plaintiff failed to establish that Rs. 72,386.05 remains due by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of their availing cash credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 25,000 on 23.2.73, and as such, J find no cause of action for the suit. The Issue decided in favour of the defendants." 7.1 fully appreciate the aforesaid observation and finding of the learned trial Judge in deciding the issue of cause of action against the appellant and I am disinclined to interfere with the said findings. I have found that the learned trial Judge has made all efforts for proper appreciation of evidence on records and arrived at a finding without committing any error of facts as well as law. Mr. I have found that the learned trial Judge has made all efforts for proper appreciation of evidence on records and arrived at a finding without committing any error of facts as well as law. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even in absence of cause of action, the defendant-respondents are liable to pay the amount admitted in the written statements and accordingly, he drew my attention to paragraph (e) and (h) of the written statement which read as follows : "(e) That even at the rate of interest indicated by the plaintiff on a proper appraisal, a sum of Rs. 39,780.32 paise must be less from the sum claimed. (h) That the claim is highly inflated and miscalculated. As per attached account, the plaintiff can get only Rs. 16,740.99 as on 11.6.85 on the agreement dated 23.2.73 and the pronote thereon." 8.1 do not find force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Once it is held that there was no cause of action for the suit, I do not feel inclined to take up the said averment for discussion. 9. Having perused the impugned judgment and decree and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the same is upheld. 10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.