JUDGMENT : This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.236 of 2012, on the files of the Sub-Court Mavelikkara, has preferred this appeal, arraying the defendants as the respondents herein, while challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.10.2014 therein. 3. Heard in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge as well as the records of the trial court. 4. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ hereafter. Short facts:- 5. The plaintiff is a Nationalised bank constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970 with its head office at Bangalore, having branches at several places, including one in Kayamkulam. The Manager of Kayamkulam branch Sri. Hari. N, who was duly authorized to represent the plaintiff to sign and verify the plaint for and on behalf of the plaintiff, filed the suit. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant availed a loan of Rs.2 lakh from the plaintiff on 23.06.2005 to improve her business. The 2nd defendant stood as co-obligant for the loan transaction. On the date of availing the loan the 1st defendant executed an agreement-cum-deed of hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff bank. Similarly, the 2nd defendant executed and delivered a covenant of co-obligation in favour of the plaintiff bank. The 1st defendant had undertaken to repay the loan amount in 35 instalments @ Rs.6,610/- starting from 23.7.2005, but she could not repay the same within the stipulated time. On 24.09.2007, she admitted the liability and executed an acknowledgement of debt, and again on 24.07.2010, she executed another acknowledgement of debt in favour of the plaintiff bank. The 1st defendant failed to repay the amount as agreed, and the plaintiff sent notice to the defendants to repay the entire amount due to the bank. Even after notice, the defendants did not repay the loan amount. As per the statement of accounts pertaining to the loan transaction, an amount of Rs.2,14,572/- together with future interest @ 15.25% was claimed by the plaintiff. 6. Defendants filed written statement raising contentions as follows:- 7. The Suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The defendants signed in blank printed forms. No collateral security was executed by the 2nd defendant as alleged. 6. Defendants filed written statement raising contentions as follows:- 7. The Suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The defendants signed in blank printed forms. No collateral security was executed by the 2nd defendant as alleged. Defendants had no transaction with the plaintiff. The signatures of the defendants were obtained by the organization of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. Plea of non-joinder was raised contending that Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi not arrayed as a party in the suit. The documents relied on by the plaintiff were signed at the time of availing the loan in 2005. The statement of accounts was disputed. The interest claimed also alleged as exorbitant. Thus, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with their cost. 8. On scrutiny of the pleadings as above, the trial court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PWs 1 and 2 were examined, Exts. A1 to A8 and X1 are marked on the side of the plaintiff. No evidence let in by the defendants. 9. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the execution of Exts.A3 and A4 acknowledgements of debt and security dated 24.09.2007 and 24.07.2010, respectively, were not proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, it was found that the suit, filed on 19.06.2012 in relation to a loan which was availed on 23.06.2005, is barred by limitation. Holding so, the suit itself was dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, while assailing the trial court verdict, submitted that, even though the loan was availed on 23.06.2005, the debt was acknowledged by the 1st defendant as per Ext.A3 as on 24.09.2007 before expiry of the period of limitation. Thereafter, the debt was again acknowledged on 24.07.2010 as per Ext. A4 within the period of limitation. In such view of the matter, the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, and the trial court went wrong in non-suiting the plaintiff on finding limitation. He also submitted that in order to prove Exts.A3 and A4 documents, the present manager of the Bank got examined as PW1, and he tendered evidence supporting execution of Exts.A1 to A4 documents as well as Ext.A5 to A8 documents. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in finding that Exts.A3 and A4 acknowledgments of debt and security were not proved by the plaintiff and also dismissing the suit as a sequel thereof. 11. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in finding that Exts.A3 and A4 acknowledgments of debt and security were not proved by the plaintiff and also dismissing the suit as a sequel thereof. 11. Addressing the contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:- 1. Whether the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by limitation is legally correct? 2. Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving Exts.A3 and A4 acknowledgments of debt and security, as per law?" 3. What is the mode of proof of documents in the custody of a bank, where the provisions of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 would apply? 4. What is meant by acknowledgment in writing, embodied in Section 18 of the Limitation Act? 5. Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court would require interference? 6. Reliefs and costs? Point Nos.1, 3 & 4 :- 12. Here, the case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakh from the plaintiff bank on 23.06.2005, and the 2nd defendant stood as a co-obligant for the said loan transaction. In order to prove availing of loan, Exts. A1 to A4, the agreement-cum-deed of hypothecation dated 08.04.2005, Guarantee agreement dated 23.06.2005, acknowledgements of debt and security dated 24.09.2007, and 24.07.2010 were tendered in evidence. 13. In order to show the balance as on the date of filing of suit, coming to the tune of Rs.2,27,084/-, PW2 was examined, and Ext.X1, the statement of accounts, was tendered in evidence. It is true that, if there is no acknowledgment of debt as canvassed by the plaintiff relying on Exts.A3 and A4 dated 24.09.2007 and 24.07.2010, the suit is barred by limitation. However, Section 18 of the Limitation Act deals with the effect of acknowledgment in writing. It has been provided that where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. Thus, the law is emphatically clear on the point that an acknowledgment of liability has been made in writing signed by the party before expiry of the period of limitation, a fresh period of limitation shall commence from the date of signing the acknowledgment in writing by operation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 14. In the instant case, as per Ext.A3, the debt was acknowledged on 24.09.2007 before expiry of the period of initial limitation. Again, before the expiry of the extended period on the strength of Ext.A3 acknowledgment of debt and security, availing of the loan and the debt were acknowledged as per Ext.A4 acknowledgment of debt and security. 15. In this connection, it is relevant to address a pertinent question as to how documents in the custody of bank, where the Bankers Book Evidence Act would apply are to be proved? In order to prove documents in the custody of a bank, a certified copy of any entry in the bankers book, along with a certificate by the Branch Manager/principal accountant and the person in charge of the resource, would give evidence and the same is admissible. Section 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act provides the mode of proof of entries in bankers' books. It has been provided that subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a bankers’ 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 the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but no further or otherwise. The normal way of proof of acknowledgement of debt is by producing the same before the court, through an authorized officer. An acknowledgement of debt need not be express, but it may be by necessary implication. Every acknowledgement affords a new proof of the existence of debt. Thus, in cases where documents of the bank are produced by an authorized officer, the same would attach credibility unless the contrary is proved. Here, the case put up by the defendants is inconsistent. At one stage, they denied availing of loan and the execution of the documents in connection with the said transaction. Thus, in cases where documents of the bank are produced by an authorized officer, the same would attach credibility unless the contrary is proved. Here, the case put up by the defendants is inconsistent. At one stage, they denied availing of loan and the execution of the documents in connection with the said transaction. Another contention is that they put signatures in papers produced by the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, and they were filled by the bank officials. At the same time, another contention is that the documents produced along with the suit were signed at the time of availing the loan. During cross-examination of PW1, even the issuance of registered notice also was denied by the learned counsel for the defendants despite the fact that legal notice as per Ext.A5 was returned with endorsement “unclaimed” on 18.02.2012. When PW1, the officiating manager of the bank, produces documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 including the agreement for the loan, the guarantee agreement, and the acknowledgment of debt and security executed by the defendants, where the signatures therein are admitted by the defendants, the evidence of PW1 alone is sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. That apart, PW2 also given evidence supporting the balance as on the date of the suit by producing Ext.X1. In such a view of the matter, the finding of the trial court that Exts.A3 and A4 are not proved and therefore suit is barred by limitation is an erroneous finding; and the same is set aside, and it is held that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Point Nos 2, 4 & 5- 16. As already discussed, in this matter, as per Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1, coupled with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is proved that, the 1st defendant availed loan of Rs.2 lakh on 23.06.2005 and later acknowledged the same as per Exts.A3 and A4. As per Ext.X1 the suit amount of Rs.2,27,084/- along with interest @ 15.25% per annum is due to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no reason to disallow realisation of the said sum claimed by the plaintiff,in a case where, availing of loan and failure of the defendants to discharge the same are proved substantially. In view of the matter, the trial court went wrong in non suiting the plaintiff on finding limitation and without decreeing the suit. Therefore, there is no reason to disallow realisation of the said sum claimed by the plaintiff,in a case where, availing of loan and failure of the defendants to discharge the same are proved substantially. In view of the matter, the trial court went wrong in non suiting the plaintiff on finding limitation and without decreeing the suit. Therefore, the verdict under challenge would require interference. 17. In the result, this regular first appeal stands allowed after setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court. Consequently, the suit is decreed as under:- (i) Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally do pay an amount of Rs.2,27,084/- with interest @ 15.25% to the plaintiff (being a commercial transaction) from the date of the suit till realisation forthwith, failing which the plaintiff is allowed to realise the same from the defendants personally and from all their assets. Further, the plaintiff is allowed to realise the entire cost throughout the proceedings from defendants 1 and 2.