1. Petitioners have filed present revision petition against the order of Registrar Cooperative Society Jammu, dt. 26.9.2011, by virtue of which an award of Rs. 82, 66, 732/- as on 30.11.2010, along with interest @14 % per annum with quarterly rest, has been passed against them. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, documents annexed with arbitration petition before Court below were not proved. That claim was time barred and petitioners were not heard before passing a ward. That there was no agreement between petitioners and respondent for payment of 14 % interest per annum. 3. I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the records. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner no. 1 through its partners (petitioners 2 and 3), availed loan in the shape of cash credit loan Limit to the tune of Rs. 40.00 lacs from respondent bank from its branch gangyal. Petitioners executed promissory notes, letter of waiver, letter of continuity, deed of hypothecation of goods and deeds of guarantees on 23.10.2001. Besides these documents a deed of mortgage, with regard to land measuring 3 kanals 06 marlas under Khata No. 349 min Khasra No. 219 min Khewat no. 85 situated at village Gurah Singo Tehsil and district Jammu, was also executed on 20.10.2001. Petitioner no. 4 and 5 stood as guarantors. After availing the loan Principle borrower became irregular and an amount of Rs. 82, 66, 732.00 became outstanding as on 30.10.2010. 5. Accordingly bank initiated proceedings under section 70/72 of J&K Cooperative Society Act, 1989. Petitioner herein appeared through their advocate which is evident from interim order dated 17.3.2011 in the file of court below. Thereafter petitioners did not file any objections and on 6.7.2011 last and final opportunity was provided for appearance of petitioners. Court below on 26.9.2011, passed an award, impugned in the revision petition in favour of respondent. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has elaborated all the grounds taken in revision petition. Whereas counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order on the ground that huge money has been swallowed by petitioners, which is public money. 7. Court below on 26.9.2011, passed an award, impugned in the revision petition in favour of respondent. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has elaborated all the grounds taken in revision petition. Whereas counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order on the ground that huge money has been swallowed by petitioners, which is public money. 7. Law is very much clear if allegations levelled in plaint are not rebutted in well explained manner, then Court has to take adverse inference that, party who did not chose to rebut the allegation by filling reply, has no defense to plead and allegations levelled in the plaint are correct. 8. Petitioners herein have not denied the execution of documents in favour of Bank. They have only stated that documents annexed with arbitration petition were not proved. I have also gone though this aspect of this case. Documents which are not denied need not to be proved in Court. 9. Further there is a certified copy of statements of accounts of bank, which substantiate that awarded amount is outstanding against the petitioner. 10. Section 4 of Bankers books evidence act 1977 (1920 AD) reads as under:- Mode of proof of entries in banker's books. Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a banker's book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. 11. Bare perusal of this section, it is manifest that, certified copy of entry in banker's book shall be considered as prima facie evidence with regard to accounts, in all legal proceedings. So argument of counsel for petitioners is not appeal able to this aspect. 12. Another argument of counsel for petitioners that claim is time barred is also not tenable, because as per statements of account, last deposit made by barrower is 31.5.2010 and arbitration petition has been filled on 3.2.2011. 13. All money lying in the banks and financial institution are public money and banks and other financial institutions, survive on the interest gathered on loan amount given to barrowers. The Courts or authority, where litigations are filled with regard to recovery of loan, have to keep this aspect in mind, while adjudicating upon the matter. 13. All money lying in the banks and financial institution are public money and banks and other financial institutions, survive on the interest gathered on loan amount given to barrowers. The Courts or authority, where litigations are filled with regard to recovery of loan, have to keep this aspect in mind, while adjudicating upon the matter. In present case huge money is involved. 14. Nowadays hundreds of such cases have emerged, which effect economic conditions of country. Fictitious loan are being taken on forged documents. Respondent bank is society and has limited branches in Jammu province and business is also not too vast. Dishonest and mischievous persons are taking loan with very intentions from beginning not to repay it. These are economic offences, having great impact in development of country. This has to be dealt with hard hand. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, the present revision petition is dismissed. The file of the trial court is sent back along with this order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.