JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-original defendant No. 4, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.1991, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in Civil Suit No. 11/85, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent-original-plaintiff. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-original-plaintiff filed the suit seeking recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 23,805.45 and interest amount of Rs. 18,568.00, in aggregate, for recovery of Rs. 42,373.45. It was alleged by the respondent-plaintiff that the plaintiff had sold the goods worth Rs. 83,578.89, to the defendant during the period from 2.11.1978 to 15.2.1980, and the defendants had made the payments on various dates as per the details given in para 6 of the plaint, to the extent of Rs. 69,000/- and therefore, the amount of Rs. 23,805.45 had remained outstanding. It was further alleged that the defendants had made last payment of Rs. 500/- by cash on 3.12.1982. The plaintiff had also claimed the interest amount of Rs. 18,568/-, on the said principal amount and thus filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,373.45 paisa. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing separate written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the suit was barred by law of limitation. 3. The trial Court, after framing the issues and appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-original defendant No. 4 has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. 4. The learned counsel Mr. V.K. Tamoliya taking the Court to the evidence led by the parties before the trial court vehemently submitted that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was barred by law of limitation in as much as the last entry dated 3.12.1982 for the payment of Rs. 500/- by cash shown in the books of accounts of the plaintiff was false and not genuine. According to Mr. Tamoliya, no such payment of Rs. 500/- by cash was made by any of the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff and such entry in the books of accounts was made by the plaintiff with a view to bring the suit within the period of limitation. According to Mr. Tamoliya, no such payment of Rs. 500/- by cash was made by any of the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff and such entry in the books of accounts was made by the plaintiff with a view to bring the suit within the period of limitation. He further submitted that the books of accounts relied upon by the plaintiff were also not genuine and were not maintained in the regular course of his business. Pressing into service Section 34 of the Evidence Act, he further submitted that mere production of books of accounts would not be sufficient for the plaintiff to prove his case. Mr. Tamoliya has relied upon the judgments of Hon. Supreme Court and other High Courts in support of his submissions. 5. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.C. Gupta, for the respondent submitted that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit, which does not call for any interference of this Court. Mr. Gupta further submitted that none of the defendants had entered into the witness box to prove the pleadings, and that the only witness examined by the defendants was the power of attorney holder of the defendant No. 4, who could not have the personal knowledge about the payment made by defendant No. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court, the main points for determination arising before this Court are, as to whether the suit of the respondent plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation, and as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount as prayed for in the plaint. 7. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it appears that the defendants in their respective written statement had categorically admitted the purchases made by them on various dates as narrated by the plaintiff in para 4 of his plaint. The defendants have also admitted the payments made by them by various cheques as stated in para 6 of the plaintiff, however, had denied the last payment of Rs. The defendants have also admitted the payments made by them by various cheques as stated in para 6 of the plaintiff, however, had denied the last payment of Rs. 500/- allegedly made by the defendant No. 1 and 2 in cash on 3.12.1982 In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff had not only pleaded in the plaint but had also proved the said fact of payment of Rs. 500/- by cash, by entering into the witness box and also by examining P.W.2 Moti Lal. P.W.1 Channo Mal had categorically stated in his evidence that cash payment of Rs. 500/-, was made by the defendant No. 2, Bhim Sen, in presence of his son Radhey Shyam, defendant No. 3 on 3.12.1982 towards the out-standing dues. P.W.2 Moti Lal also had stated that the said payment was made by the defendants Bhimsen and Radhey Shyam to the plaintiff Channo Mal in his presence. As against that the defendants have chosen not to enter into the witness box to deny such payment. D.W.1 Kumod Kishore, was examined by the defendants, however, in the examination-in-chief, he has stated that he was deposing as the power of attorney holder of the defendant No. 4 Hari Babu. Of course, he had also stated that he was working as the Manager in the defendant No. 1 Firm. Though the said witness had stated that the defendants had not made any payment by cash to the plaintiff Channo Mal, he could not have any personal knowledge about the fact as to whether any payment was made by the defendant Bhimsen or Radhey Shyam to the plaintiff or not. It is needless to say that the power of attorney holder could depose only regarding the facts which are in his personal knowledge and could not state on behalf of the concerned party. Thus, the evidence of the plaintiff having remained practically un-challenged, the trial Court has rightly believed that the defendants had made payment of Rs. 500/- by cash on 3.12.1982, towards the out-standing amount. 8. Assailing the genuineness of the entries made in the books of accounts produced by the plaintiff before the trial court, Mr. Tamolia, counsel for the appellant had sought to submit that such entries were not genuine and the books of accounts were not maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of his business. 8. Assailing the genuineness of the entries made in the books of accounts produced by the plaintiff before the trial court, Mr. Tamolia, counsel for the appellant had sought to submit that such entries were not genuine and the books of accounts were not maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of his business. However, in absence of any evidence adduced by the defendants to show that such books of accounts were not genuine or were not maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of his business, the entries made in such books of accounts are required to be taken into consideration as per Section 34 of the Evidence Act. It is true that such entries made in books of accounts alone would not be sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff, nonetheless in the instant case the plaintiff has proved the entries made in the books of account by stepping into the witness box, and the defendants have not been able to show successfully that such books of accounts were not maintained by the plaintiff in regular course of his business. The defendants also do not appear to have taken any objection when such books of accounts were admitted by the trial court for being read in evidence. Thus, in absence of any evidence led by the defendants, it could not be said that the plaintiff had not maintained the books of accounts regularly in the course of his business. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly allowed the claim of principal amount of Rs. 23,805.45, made by the plaintiff. However, so far as the interest amount claimed prior to the suit is concerned, it is required to be noted that the plaintiff had neither produced any agreement nor led any cogent evidence to show that the defendants had agreed to pay interest on the out-standing amount. The plaintiff had also failed to prove that there was any practice or custom prevalent at the relevant time to pay the interest as claimed in the suit. Under the circumstances the plaintiff could not be awarded Rs. 18,568/- claimed towards the interest amount. 9. In view of the above, the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent of awarding the principal amount of Rs. 23,805.45 deserves to be confirmed and to the extent of the interest amount of Rs. Under the circumstances the plaintiff could not be awarded Rs. 18,568/- claimed towards the interest amount. 9. In view of the above, the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent of awarding the principal amount of Rs. 23,805.45 deserves to be confirmed and to the extent of the interest amount of Rs. 18568/- claimed by the plaintiff for the period prior to the suit deserves to be set-aside. 10. The respondent-plaintiff, therefore, would be entitled to the principal amount of Rs. 23805.45 only, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment. The appeal, thus, stands partly allowed.Appeal Partly allowed. *******