JUDGMENT DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-B/02 whereby the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC), bemetara has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/bank as barred by limitation. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the trial Court.) ( 2 ) THE plaintiff/bank filed a civil suit for recovery of loan of Rs. 3,11,880/- advanced to defendant No. 1 for purchase of tractor and trolley with the averment that the loan was advanced on 8-7-1985 after defendant no. 1 executed a demand of promissory note; letter of guarantee by sureties-defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4; Term Loan Agreement of hypothecation of Movable Properties; hypothecation of standing crops, as detailed in para 4 (A) (B) (C) and (D) of the plaint. The loan was repayable in half yearly installments in seven years with interest @ 12. 50% on six monthly rests. On failure of defendant no. 1 in timely repayment of the instalments with interest and expenditure, notices were served. However, when the defendants failed to repay the installments even after receipt of notices, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Tehsildar in the year 1993 as per provisions of the M. P. Public Money Recovery Act and the same were, subsequently, withdrawn. It was also averred that defendant No. 1 executed a promissory note promising to repay the entire loan amount in lump sum as per loan account acknowledging balance of loan vide acknowledgments dated 14-8-1995, 24-7-1996 and 30-1-1997. Defendant No. 1 had mortgaged her 29. 45 acre of agricultural land in favour of the Bank by depositing the documents described in Schedule B annexed with the plaint as additional security against the loan. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had also equitably mortgaged their property described in Schedules C and D. Defendant No. 1 had executed an Acknowledgment of Debt at the time of disbursal of loan and renewed the Acknowledgment of Debt in the year 1991 and 12th May, 1994 and accepted her liability towards the Bank as per her loan account with the Bank. ( 3 ) THE defendants, denying the averments in the plaint, averred in their written statement that the plaintiff/bank had instituted recovery proceedings before the Tehsildar. ( 3 ) THE defendants, denying the averments in the plaint, averred in their written statement that the plaintiff/bank had instituted recovery proceedings before the Tehsildar. The defendants had submitted their legal objection against initiating recovery proceedings without issue of revenue recovery certificate. When their objection was rejected by the Tehsildar, they had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya pradesh, however, after receiving notice from the High Court, the plaintiff in collusion with the Tehsildar, got the proceedings dismissed as withdrawn and filed the instant suit during pendency of the writ petition. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed. Three witnesses namely Vijay Govind Goverdhan- Branch Manager, Sarjuram Yadav - Peon and Silvasto Toppo - another Branch manager of the plaintiff/bank were examined by the plaintiff. The defendants did not examine any witness. ( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court, while dismissing the suit by the impugned judgment and decree, held that the suit has been filed by an authorized person; the plaintiff advanced loan of Rs. 1 lac cash on 22-7-1985 to defendant no. 1, which was payable with interest @ 12. 50% p. a. on six monthly rests; defendant no. 1 had entered into an agreement to repay the loan in seven years in six monthly installments and failed to repay the six monthly installments; the defendant-deceased Ram Vishal was co-loanee and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 stood surety for repayment of the loan; defendant No. 1 had hypothecated the tractor and trolley with the bank for the loan, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan by sale of the hypothecated property; defendant No. 1 had also executed an equitable mortgage of her standing crop against the agricultural loan and the bank is entitled for a decree of Rs. 3,11,880/-jointly and severally against the defendants with interest @ 14% on six monthly rests. It has been further held that the plaintiff/bank has failed to prove that the defendants had equitably mortgaged their lands described in schedules B, C and D for the security of the loan in favour of the Bank, and the suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation. It has been further held that the plaintiff/bank has failed to prove that the defendants had equitably mortgaged their lands described in schedules B, C and D for the security of the loan in favour of the Bank, and the suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation. ( 6 ) SHRI B. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, argued that the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation while deciding the issue No. 17 in the affirmative. Finding on issue No. 17 is not in accordance with law. From perusal of the loan account statement of the tractor loan No. 110/85, filed and proved by the plaintiff by exhibiting it through the Branch Manager, it would be evident that the defendant No. 1 had deposited various amounts towards repayment of loan in her loan account and thus, on each payment, limitation got extended by three years as per provisions of Article 1 read with Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "act, 1963" ). Article 1 of the Act, 1963 provides that in a suit relating to accounts for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, the period of limitation is three years from the close of the year, in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account, such year to be computed as in the account. In the instant case, the last payment of Rs. 19,000/- has been made on 16-4-1996 and the suit has been filed on 12-2-1997 and therefore, the limitation for filing the suit got extended for a period of three years from 16-4-1996. It was further argued that the amount of loan is secured by the deposit of title deed as revenue papers B-1 and Khasra etc. which are treated as title documents, were deposited and acknowledged by defendant No. 1/loanee and the loanee in her letter to the Bank admitted the acknowledgment in categorical terms that these documents were being deposited with an intent to create an equitable mortgage and in case of mortgage suit, the prescribed period of limitation is 12 years and the trial court was not justified in not treating it as a mortgage suit and not decreeing the suit under Order 34, of the CPC. ( 7 ) HE further argued that indisputably, the loan was repayable in seven years with interest @ 12. 5% per annum on half yearly rests as per agreement executed by defendant No. 1 on 22-7-1985 and thus, up to the year 1992, the suit could not be held to be barred by limitation even if no payment is made by the loanee and therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment against issue No. 17 that the suit has been filed after three years from the date of taking loan and as such, barred by limitation, are erroneous and not sustainable in law. Lastly, it was argued that since the plaintiff had advanced agricultural loan for the purchase of tractor, the Bank had proceeded under the provisions of M. P. Public Money recovery Act before the Tehsildar concerned. The defendants challenged the above recovery proceedings in the High Court by way of filing writ petition and an interim order was passed in favour of the defendants staying the proceedings before the Tehsildar and in these circumstances, the plaintiff had withdrawn the recovery proceedings from the court of Tehsildar and immediately, there after the instant suit was filed. Thus, the plaintiff/bank was bona fidely prosecuting the recovery proceedings under the provisions of M. P. Public Money Recovery Act and as such, the time spent in prosecuting the proceedings before the Tehsildar was liable to be excluded as per Section 14 of the act. ( 8 ) RELIANCE is placed on the judgment in the matter of Kesharichand Jalsukhalal v. Shillong Banking Corporation Ltd. ,shillong, air 1965 SC 1711. ( 9 ) THE defendants remained unrepresented, despite service of notices. ( 10 ) THE short question for our consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation while giving finding against issue no. 17 ? ( 11 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, including the impugned judgment of the trial Court. ( 12 ) FROM the pleadings in the plaint and oral and documentary evidence available on record, we find that defendant No. 1 applied for loan of Rs. 1 lac for the purchase of tractor and trolley and other agricultural accessories vide Ex. P. 1. She also submitted Search report with respect to 29. ( 12 ) FROM the pleadings in the plaint and oral and documentary evidence available on record, we find that defendant No. 1 applied for loan of Rs. 1 lac for the purchase of tractor and trolley and other agricultural accessories vide Ex. P. 1. She also submitted Search report with respect to 29. 45 acres of her agricultural land vide Ex. P. 2. Revenue papers (copy of B-1 and map) of the land i. e. Ex. P. 4, P. 5 and P. 6, were also filed by the loanee with her application for loan. Her husband had submitted his consent vide Ex. P. 7. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had executed a deed of hypothecation of standing crops over their agricultural land on 22-7-1985 vide Ex. P. 10. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had executed a deed of guarantee to secure the loan advanced to. the principal debtor vide P. 12. As per Clause 5 of the Term Loan Agreement of Hypothecation (Ex. P. 11), loan of Rs. 1 lac advanced to defendant No. 1 was repayable within seven years in half yearly instalments of Rs. 7150/- each with interest @ 12. 50% per annum or at the rate or rates as may at any time and from time to time be fixed in that behalf by the Bank. Term Loan agreement is executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 had executed an acknowledgment of Debt of Rs. 1,45,234/-as on 14-5-1991 with interest payable @ 14% p. a. on half yearly rests. The plaintiff/bank has also filed and proved certified true copy of the statement of tractor loan account No. 110/85 of the defendant No. 1 from 22-7-1985 to 17-12-1996 vide Ex. P. 16. A close examination of the document of Ex. P. 16 reveals that defendant No. 1 had deposited the following amounts towards repayment of loan : si. No. Date Deposits (In Rupees)01. 10-7-1986 8,716 02. 22-9-1986 10,000 03. 7-8-1987 6,000 04. 12-4-1990 19,000 05. 30-3-1991 10,000 06. 8-5-1992 500 07. 5-6-1993 5,000 08. 20-1-1994 15,000 09. 31-3-1994 4,000 10. 7-1-1996 1,235 11. 4-4-1996 4,000 12. P. 16 reveals that defendant No. 1 had deposited the following amounts towards repayment of loan : si. No. Date Deposits (In Rupees)01. 10-7-1986 8,716 02. 22-9-1986 10,000 03. 7-8-1987 6,000 04. 12-4-1990 19,000 05. 30-3-1991 10,000 06. 8-5-1992 500 07. 5-6-1993 5,000 08. 20-1-1994 15,000 09. 31-3-1994 4,000 10. 7-1-1996 1,235 11. 4-4-1996 4,000 12. 16-4-1996 19,000 ( 13 ) THE period of limitation for suits relating to accounts for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, is three years and the time from which period begins to run is to be computed from the close of the year, in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account; such year to be computed as in the account as per Article 1 of the Act, 1963. ( 14 ) SECTION 19 of the Act, 1963 provides as under: "19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.- Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made : provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. " ( 15 ) IN the instant case, indisputably, deposits were made by defendant No. 1/loanee as indicated in the document of Ex. P. 16 and proved by P. W. 3 and not controverted by the defendants. Entries in the document of ex. P/16 are duly certified by the Branch manager and an endorsement to this effect is present at the foot of the statement of account. P. 16 and proved by P. W. 3 and not controverted by the defendants. Entries in the document of ex. P/16 are duly certified by the Branch manager and an endorsement to this effect is present at the foot of the statement of account. "certified copy" is defined under the provisions of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 (in short "act, 1891)"), which reads as under: "2 (8) "certified copy" means a copy of any entry in the books of a bank together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such entry, that such entry is contained in one of the ordinary books of the bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that such book is still in the custody of the bank and where the copy was obtained by a mechanical or other process which in itself ensured the accuracy of the copy, a further certificate to that effect, but where the book from which such copy was prepared has been destroyed in the usual course of the bank's business after the date on which the copy had been so prepared, a further certificate to that effect, each such certificate being dated and subscribed by the principal accountant or manager of the bank with his name and official title. " section 4 of the Act, 1891 reads thus : "4. Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in the banker's book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. " ( 16 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kesharichand Jaisukhalal (AIR 1965 SC 1711) while dealing with Article 85 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, which provides that the period of limitation for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, is three years from the close of the year, in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account; such year to be computed as in the account, has referred to the leading case of hirada Basappa v. G. Muddappa, (70-71) 6 mad HC 142, wherein it was held that "to be mutual there must be transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations", with approval. ( 17 ) IN the present case also, it is not in dispute that the account between the parties was at all time an open and current one. From the transactions reflecting from the statement of account of Ex. P. 16, it is clear that it was mutual during the relevant period. As per section4 of the Act, 1891, the plaintiff/bank has submitted statement of account duly certified by the Bank officer and the same may be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entries, and the same may be treated as sufficient evidence to hold that defendant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rupees 6,000/- on 7-8-1987 and thereafter, within three years i. e. on 12-4-1990 she again deposited Rs. 19,000/- towards repayment of loan; on 30-3-1991, Rs. 10,000/-; on 5-6-1993, Rs. 5,000/-; on 20-1-1994, Rupees 15,000/-; on 31-3-1994, Rs. 4,000/-; and finally, on 16-4-1996, Rs. 19,000/ -. Thus, by virtue of Section 19 read with Article 1 of the Act, 1963, fresh extended period of limitation of three years is to be computed from the close of the year in which last item admitted or proved as entered in the account. ( 18 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with issue No. 17 regarding limitation, has not considered the effect of document of Ex. ( 18 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with issue No. 17 regarding limitation, has not considered the effect of document of Ex. R16, which has not been controverted by the defendants, either by way of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, who has proved the said document, or by examining any witness in support of their contention that the suit is barred by limitation. ( 19 ) ON the basis of aforesaid discussions, we have no hesitation in setting aside the finding recorded by the learned Additional district Judge against issue No. 17 and consequently, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. Since learned Additional District Judge has already decided the other issues and held that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of rs. 3,11,880/- with interest @ 14% p. a. on six monthly rests from the date of institution of the suit, and the defendants have not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid findings, the said findings have attained finality and therefore; we do not deem it necessary to consider other legal issues raised by the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 20 ) CONSEQUENTLY, for the foregoing reasons, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. The finding recorded by the trial court against issue No. 17, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, is set aside, and it is held that the suit was within time. Accordingly, the plaintiff/bank's suit is decreed with cost throughout and it is held that the plaintiff/bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,11,880/- with interest @ 14% per annum on six monthly rests and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff/bank. A decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .