Section 4: Mode of proof of entries in banker’s books
2011 CLD 755 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SONERI BANK LIMITED through Attorneys VS ELITE PUBLISHERS LIMITED
7—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Statement of accounts issued by Bank using therein words “withdrawal” and “deposit” instead of “debit” and “credit”—Validity—Mere non-using of words “debit” and “credit” would not make such statement invalid.
2011 CLD 393 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS MUSLIM CO1TON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
Ss. 9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Leave to defend suit, application for—Defendant’s plea was that statement of accounts contained unjust entries without showing details thereof—Validity—Defendant in support of his plea had not pointed out any specific entry in such statement—Such statement lying on record contained all transactions of defendant’s account and was certified and dated by competent officer in accordance with provisions of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—High Court repelled defendant’s plea for being vague.
2011 CLD 84 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MCB BANK LIMITED VS EASTERN CAPITAL LTD.
Ss. 9 & 10(4)(5)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120—Bankers’ Book Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Recovery of bank loan—Liability, determination of-Shifting of onus—Procedure—Bank sought recovery of bank loan and liability was not disputed by defendants—Effect—Plaintiff-Bank was responsible under S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in first phase to submit statement of accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1891, with supporting documents and thereafter burden was shifted to defendants to answer the claim keeping in view the provisions of S.10(4) and (5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—In order to avoid delay in disposal, efforts should be made to institute banking suit and file leave to defend in letter and spirit of law along with property documents relating to disbursement of finance facility, payments, repayments and plaint and leave to defend must be equipped with proper break up of amount—Terms of rescheduling/restructuring/settlement of liabilities were accepted and agreed vide letter/agreement which showed that liability was accepted with due care and caution after institution of suit and filing of leave to defend application, therefore, in view of the clear admission of liability, instead of dismissing the application for leave to defend for non-compliance of requirement of S.10(4) and (5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in all conscience—High Court passed an interim decree against the defendants on the basis of undisputed letter/agreement produced by the plaintiff-Bank along with the replication—Suit was decreed accordingly.
2007 CLD 678 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs MUJAHID NAWAZ COTTON GINNERS through Partners
—Ss. 9 & 18—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan by Bank—Statement of account submitted by Bank –“Certification” of such statement—Requirements—If the ‘certificate’ on the ‘statement of accounts’
2007 CLD 678 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs MUJAHID NAWAZ COTTON GINNERS through Partners
–Ss. 89 & 18—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan by Bank—Submission of Bank statements, by Bank—Certificate to be given at the foot of such’ statements so as to make it a ‘certified copy’—Requireme
2007 CLD 667 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM NAZAK VS ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
—S.9-Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for declaration by plaintiff disclaiming to have obtained loan from Bank-Proof-Onus was on Bank to prove that disputed loan was advanced to plaintiff—-Bank did not produce original applicati
2007 CLD 667 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM NAZAK VS ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
–S.4-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIII, R.4—Documents relating to entries in Bankers’ Books not attested by Bank, but exhibited in evidence—Validity—Such documents would have no evidentiary value.
2006 CLD 18 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Sh. ABDUL SATTAR LASI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad
—Ss. 9 & 15—7Mnsfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.69—Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961), S.40—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4, 25 & 175—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—NonÂpayment of Ba
2006 CLD 773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager VS Mrs. MAH TALLAT SULTAN
?
2005 CLD 1746 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AMTUL REHMAN INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive/ Managing Director VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—Ss.9 & 10—Banker’s Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount-Application for leave to appear and defend suit—Discrepancies in statement of account.—Effect—Determination of actual amount due would not be possible
2005 CLD 1186 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ICEPAC LIMITED VS Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
–S.9-Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave application raising objections qua statement of accounts i.e. neither showing disbursement of amount nor executed and verified in according with Banker’s Boo
2005 CLD 893 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BELA AUTOMOTIVES LIMITED VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
–S.9(2)—Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for accounts and damages by borrower—Non filing of statement of accounts along with plaint —Effect—BreakÂup of statement of plaintiffs claim given in body of plaint quantifying mark-
2004 CLD 1376 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
—–S.4—Statement of accounts, presumption of truth—Suit for recovery was based on statement of accounts, which were attached ‘to the plaint and were duly verified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and were not rebutted by the appellants—Stat
2004 CLD 1338 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS Messrs ILYAS ENTERPRISES through Proprietor Mr. Ilyas Malik
—–S.12—Production of evidence—Burden of proof, discharge of–ÂSuits for recovery filed by the bank against the respondents were dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the bank had produced only one witness and a statement of account, in e
2004 CLD 937 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD NAFEES VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss.2(3) & 4–Statements of accounts—Presumption of correctness—Presumption attached to the statement of accounts is only to the extent that whatever figures are giver. or reflected therein are true and as per the book of account, there is no presu
2004 CLD 838 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TARIQ JAVED VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.15 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Decree in suit for recovery of loan amount–Validity—Defendants had admitted availing of loan facility and had not denied execution of all documents annexed with plaint or placed on rec
2004 CLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. VS MOHIB FABRIC INDUSTRIES LTD.
—-Ss.9 & 10—Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.7—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend suit—Plain not supported by loan documents and duly verified statement of accounts—Banki
2004 CLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD MUJTABA VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB
—-Ss.9 & 10—Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.7—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend suit—Plain not supported by loan documents and duly verified statement of accounts—Banki
2004 CLD 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs C.M. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 9 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss. 2(8) & 4—Statement of account—Pre-requisites of–Application for leave to defend—Dismissal of—Suit for recovery of loan amount decreed in favour of the Banking Company—Plea of the
2004 CLD 535 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MACH KNITTERS (PVT.) LIMITED VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—S.4—Statement of accounts—Presumption of correctness–Appellants had not raised any objection to the statement of accounts or any to entries – contained therein—Minor discrepancies in statement of accounts would not disentitle the bank from claim
2003 CLD 1468 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS SAIF NADEEM ELECTRO LIMITED
—-Ss.3, 9 & 17—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Bank filed such suit upon breach of terms of settlement dated 22-10-1997 by defendants—Defendants in settlement package admitted their liability of
2003 CLD 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INTERNATIONAL TRADERS VS UNION BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 15 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount decreed by Banking Court—Validity—Defendants had not denied availing of finance facility and execution of loan documents—Statement of accounts fi
2003 CLD 1406 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BANK OF KHYBER VS Messrs SPENCER DISTRIBUTION LTD.
—-Ss.3(2), 9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan amount–ÂDismissal of application for leave to defend —Effect–ÂAllegations made in the plaint would be deemed to be admitted—Bank had produce
2003 CLD 931 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED VS BENTONITE PAKISTAN LIMITED
#NAME?
2003 PCRLJ 1212 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
SHUJA-UR-REHMAN VS THE STATE
—-S. 4—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.76—Penal Code (XLV of 1860); S.302/34—Criminal trial—Certified copy of the document could be received in legal proceedings as evidence under S.4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and under Art.76,
2002 CLD 1621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MALIK & COMPANY VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK
—-Ss. 17 & 22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152–Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Decree, amendment of—Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs.13,18,171.58 with mark-up—Defendant filed application for leave to appear and defend–
2002 CLD 1431 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Vice-President, Zonal Chief VS EFFEF INDSUTRIES LIMITED
—-Ss. 9. 10 & 3(2)—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891). S.4—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Dismissal of application for leave to defend the suit—Effect—Allegations made in the plaint, after dismissal of such application, would be deeme
2002 CLD 1270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YUSAF VS A.D.B.P.
—S.9(l)(2)—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891). Ss. 2(8) & 4—Suit by customer against Bank—Requirement of filing of statement of account with plaint—Banking Court rejected plaint for not being supported by statement of accounts—Validit
2002 CLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS FIRST TAWAKAL MODARABA through Tawakkal Management (Pvt.) Ltd.
—Ss.3(2), 10 & 29—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.10–Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6—Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Amended application for leave to defen
2000 CLC 847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITI BANK N.A., A BANKING COMPANY VS RIAZ AHMED
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4???Suit for recovery of Bank loan???Statement of account???Proof???Validity???Entry in the statement of account alone was not sufficient to prove the claim of the plaintiff?Bank, corroboration was necessary in circumstances.
1999 YLR 2071 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED STEEL CORPORATION, MOMANPURA, DARUGHAWALA, G.T. ROAD, LAHORE VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —-S. 4—Certified statement of accounts–Presumption of correctness— Condition–Where the entries in such a statement have not been rebutted with cogent reasons, the presumption of correctness is attached with such certified statement of accounts under S.4 of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.
1999 CLC 671 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS MUHAMMAD ABDUL JALIL SHAH
- 34—Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Evidence–Rules of appreciation—Three well known rules of appreciation of evidence were; firstly where a document, such as bond, receipt of entry in book of accounts, execution of which was admitted, embodied on admission of receipt of a debt, admission would shift onus of proof upon person who had executed such document; secondly, presumption of good faith was in human transactions similar to presumption of innocence in criminal cases as expressed in maxim “praesumunturrite esse acta”; burden of proving that a particular transaction suffered from bad faith, fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence, essentially would lay upon party who alleged said circumstance; thirdly, copies of accounts taken from books of accounts maintained by Banks, were per se admissible as prima facie evidence of existence of such entry in books of account and were admitted in evidence of transaction and accounts recorded therein to same extent as original entry under S.4 of Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891—Such entries were not solely sufficient to charge borrower with liability and needed to be proved by supportive evidence.
1992 CLC 1108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED VS CHEAP JOHN
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S.4—-Statement of account—Admissibility—Statement of accounts filed by plaintiffs was admissible in evidence under S.4, Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—Defendants having failed to rebut such evidence, statement of accounts riled by plaintiff was deemed to be correct—Suit was decreed on the basis of such statement of account.
1991 MLD 2363 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE TARIQ & CO .
—-Ss. 6 & 7—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act XVIII of 1891, S.4—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, Rr.2 & 3—Suit for recovery of loan–Defendants/borrowers were duly served, but neither they appeared nor applied for leave to appear and defend s
1990 PLD 209 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS GAMMON PAK. LTD.
- 4—Application of S. 4 to accounts of a foreign branch of a Pakistani Bank——Statement of accounts issued by a branch of bank which was located outside Pakistan———Admissibility———Mere fact that the petitioner—Bank which was admittedly a Pakistani Bank, had opened a branch in i foreign country, would not convert the bank into a foreign bank———Petitioner Bank would remain a Pakistani Bank for all purposes so long as it is registered in Pakistan and its statement of accounts would be admissible in terms of S.4, Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891.
1990 CLC 1139 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS GAMMON PAKISTAN LIMITED
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 4—Statement of accounts prepared by a branch of bank located outside Pakistan, would be admissible under S.4, Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, because relevant bank being a Pakistani bank could not be regarded as a foreign bank in spite of its branch being located outside Pakistan.
1989 PLD 191 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS AL MANSOOR LTD.
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —S. 2–Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, 11.14, O.XIII, R.1 & O.XVI, R.1–Suit for recovery of Bank loan–Plaintiff (Bank) failing to produce certified copies of books on which reliance was placed–Effect–Only certified copies of the entries in. Books of Accounts, honestly and correctly made, can be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entries without introduction of the original–Where, however, once authenticity and correctness, thereof, was disputed, then Bank was not absolved from proving the said entries and have to prove the entries of the Bankers’ Books according to the law of evidence-Plaintiff failed to produce certified copies from their books on which he relied, in compliance with mandatory provisions of 0 VII, R.14 and O.XIII, R.I., C.P.C. or at the time of filing of list of witnesses under O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C.-
1988 CLC 969 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMADSULLEMAN VS HABIB BANK LIMITED, HYDERABAD
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 4–Suit for recovery of loans–Certified copy of statement of account–Tendering in evidence–Mode of–Certified copy of statement of account unless tendered through witness or through affidavit in ex parte proof, if same would have been ordered, held, would not be sufficient for purpose of ex parte proof.
1988 MLD 984 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS CHAMPHAR (PAKISTAN) Ltd.
—O.XXXVII, R.3–Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Summary suit for recovery of loan–Liability of borrower and guarantor–Proof of-Defendant borrower acknowledged his liability by executing balance confirmation slips–Guarantor defendant
1988 MLD 413 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs UNITED BANK Ltd. VS BEGUM JAMILA KHATOON
—S. 34–Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 4–Certified copies of entries in books of accounts–Evidentiary value of–Payment of specified amount by defendant–No evidence besides certified copy of such amount produced to saddle defendant wi
1987 MLD 2845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EUROPEAN ASIAN BANK VS K . K . MOIDEEN
—O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2–Bankers’ Book Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Recovery of amount–Evidence produced by plaintiff bank going unchallenged and unrebutted and sufficient and strong documentary evidence was led by it which proved that defendant had
1986 PCRLJ 71 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAZOOR BAKHSH SAMEJO VS THE STATE
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —S. 4–Certified extracts of Bank Registers and Books, held, would be relevant and admissible to prove existence of entries in relevant registers.
1986 MLD 271 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS MODERN SANITARYWARES
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —S.4–Statement of loan account–Certified copy of statement produced by plaintiffs-appellant’s witness to which no objection taken by defendants-respondents and its veracity not challenged–Trial Court disregarding this document on mere ground that it did not bear certificate as required by provisions of Bankers Books Evidence Act–Trial Court, held, had fallen in error–As no objection was taken by respondent at earliest when copy of statement was produced, said respondent could not subsequently be allowed to raise plea that it did not bear certificate in form prescribed by Banker’s Books Evidence Act.
1985 PLD 117 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- B. P VS ILAM DIN & CO.
- 6-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9 & O. XXXVII, r. 2-Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 4-Suit for recovery of loan-Grant of leave to defend suit-Loan amount stood proved as due from defendants to plaintiff and execution of all documents which were annexed with plaint or placed on record otherwise not denied by defendants-Defendants admitting availing of loan facility but only baldly disputed correctness of statement of accounts – Presumption of correctness attached to statement of accounts in no manner rebutted by defendants-Held, in light of documents filed by plaintiff which had in no manner been controverted by any documentary evidence or even by denial of execution of said documents by defendants or of affixation of signatures thereon, bare assertion of incorrectness of statement of accounts could in no way be given any weight or made basis for granting leave to defend suit.
1985 PLD 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- B .P. VS KOHINOOR COTTON MILLS LTD.
- XXXVII, r. 3-Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 7-Company voluntary winding up Loan-Recovery suit-Application for leave to appeal and defend suit-Company having already applied for withdrawal of winding up petition-None of grounds of application for leave to defend were such which could give rise to any triable issue-No justification to grant leave to appear and defend suit, held, present-Application for leave to defend suit dismissed-Contents of plaint to be deemed as proved and as such suit decreed accordingly.
1983 PLD 31 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
GUL HABIB VS HABIB BANK LTD.
— S. 4 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 65—Evidence as to entries in account books kept in regular course of business-Mere production of such account books does not- constitute evidence of entries made therein—Exception to such rule, however,
1983 PLD 431 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. VS H. S. MAHMOOD HASSAN AKBAR
- 4-Certified copy of entries in banker’s book, held, prima facie an evidence of such an entry reflecting transactions, matters and accounts and certified copy dispenses with production of original books of accounts and is admissible.
1983 CLC 1297 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS GREEN HOSIERY MILLS
- 4-Entry in a banker’s book-Certified copy-Held, can be received in legal proceedings as evidence of existence of such entry like original one.
1982 PCRLJ 658 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
STATE VS MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 — S. 4 (a)—Bank statements-Proof-Section 4 (a)-of Act XVIII of 1891 comes into play when accounts proved to have been kept regularly and statement of accounts also proved to have been prepared by employee of Bank concerned and none else-Bank statements, by themselves, held, not conclusive evidence of facts stated therein and must be proved item by item for purpose of charging opposite-party.
1980 PLD 38 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL FASIH VS N.B.P LAHORE
- 4-Proposition that statement of accounts can be received without formal proof, held. correct-However such statement not conclusive evidence-Such evidence, held, rebuttable.
1972 PLD 311 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MESSRS FARID SONS LTD., KARACHI VS MESSRS GHULAM FARID MOHAMMAD SAEED
- 4-Certified copy of entry in a Banker’s Book-Held, admissible in evidence of its own force and need not be proved formally except by tender of document.
1969 PLD 529 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
NABADWIP CHANDRA PODDER VS S. D. AHMED, OFFICIAL RECEIVER, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, DASS BANK LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 4-Certificate given by Manager of foreign Bank from foreign country-Admissibility in evidence, held, doubtful.
1966 PLD 684 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ MUHAMMAD UMAR VS AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 4 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 34-Certified copy of account not of any greater efficacy than original-S. 34, Evidence Act, 1872, governs proof of original entry-Admissibility of evidence not to be confused with sufficiency of evidence to charge with liability Entry alone not sufficient to charge with liability-Corroboration necessary-No hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to nature and extent o f corroboration-Corroboration from circumstances.