Judgment 1. This is plaintiff s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to prove his bahi entries dated 5-6-1993 which had mentioned that the defendant-respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff-appellant on 5-6-1993. The plea taken by the defendant-respondent was that he had not taken any amount from the plaintiff-appellant and therefore, the entries in his Bahi were fictitious. He also denied signing bahi entries by stating that at the time of agreement to sell his signatures on some blank papers were obtained. That agreement was executed by the father of the plaintiff-appellant with one Munshi Ram. The father of the appellant had assured the defendant-respondent that the blank papers were to be destroyed. His father died. However the plaintiff-appellant appears to have misused those papers. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the execution of writing Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 dated 5-6-1993. The passing of consideration in favour of the defendant-respondent has also not been proved. The original bahi entries were not confronted to the witnesses at the time of their statement before the Court nor those Bahi entries were exhibited. The stand of the defendant-respondent has been duly supported by Ex. P5 which is a copy of sale deed dated 24-5-1993 showing that earlier there was an agreement between the father of the plaintiff-appellant and one Munshi Ram to sell the land as mentioned in the sale deeds. Writings are found to be manipulated and unenforceable in the eyes of law. In this regard it would be opposite to refer to the categorical findings as recorded by the learned District Judge Bhiwani. After detailed examination of the entire documentary and oral evidence, the District Judge has held as under : "From the totality of the discussion, it would be safe to hold that the plaintiff failed to prove the reasons as to why on the same day, that is 5-6-1993, after paying Rs. 1,25,000/- another amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced within a gap of six hours. No source of income was disclosed as to from where so much amount was collected. 1,25,000/- another amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced within a gap of six hours. No source of income was disclosed as to from where so much amount was collected. It was not shown as to why the defendant had taken such a huge amount of loan and what was the necessity. The scribe did not state that any amount was paid in his presence. At the time of leading the evidence only photo copies of the bahi entries were produced without showing the original one. The original pages of the bahi were produced later on." For the above reasons, it is held that the plaintiff failed to prove the due execution of bahi entries Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. He also failed to prove the passing of consideration. The learned lower Court correctly appreciated the evidence, I could not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded under issue No. 1. I affirm the same". 2. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the orders of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be warranted in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It was the primary duty of the plaintiff-appellant to prove the advancement of loan, passing of consideration and other necessary factors. I am further of the view that the books of accounts may constitute relevant evidence under Section 34 of Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity the Act ). Section 34 of the Act reads as under : "Entries in books of account when relevant .- "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." 3. A perusal of Section 34 of the Act shows that entries in books of accounts are relevant if such books of accounts have been kept in regular course of business . In the present case original books of accounts have never been produced. Only two pages of bahi entries Mark A and Mark B have been produced and that too show a cramped writing. In the present case original books of accounts have never been produced. Only two pages of bahi entries Mark A and Mark B have been produced and that too show a cramped writing. In such a situation the first appellate Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Dass Jain V/s. Sohan Lal, 2000 (1) SCC 434 : (AIR 2000 SC 426) and relevant observations of their Lordships read as under : "It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed "account books" i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the "regular course of business". Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page-numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business. It is only in the case of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 that certified copies are allowed or the case must come under Section 65(1) or (g) of the Evidence Act. Private extracts of accounts in other cases can only be secondary evidence and unless a proper foundation is laid for adducing such secondary evidence under Section 65 or other provisions of the Evidence Act, the privately handwritten copies of alleged account books cannot themselves be treated as secondary evidence." 4. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on another judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. V/s. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 : (AIR 1998 SC 1406). 5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.