' ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree passed by the learned Special Court (Banking), Lahore, under Order XXXIV, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure do the 11th July, 1982, in favour of the respondent, Grindlays Bank Limited, Bank Square, Lahore and against the appellant for the realisation of Rs.10,21,760.01. On the 14th November, 1972, the respondent brought suit against Mian Fazal Din, predecessor-ininterest of the appellant, for a declaration that the properties in dispute stood charged with the loan of Rs.3,51,434.99 and for the recovery thereof. According to the respondent Mian Fazal Din had equitably mortgaged his properties in order to avail of the facility of loan. However, Mian Fazal Din denied that he had deposited the documents of title with the respondent for the purpose of creating equitable mortgage, he maintained that he had simply shown the documents to the officipls of the respondent Bank for establishing his credit worthiness. Mian Fazal Din admitted that he had availed of the facility of loan but asserted that he had repaid the same.
2. The learned trial Court concluded that Mian Fazal Din had actually mortgaged the properties with the respondent for securing loan and that the amount in question claimed by the respondent was still due from him. Adding the pendente lite interest and costs of the suit to the amount of loan the learned trial Court granted decree to the tune of Rs.10,21,760.01.
3.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants pleaded for ignoring from consideration the certified copy of the statement of Mian Fazal Din's accounts filed by the respondent because it did not mention the name of the manager, who had signed it, as required by subsection (8) of section 2 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Mr. G.M. Beg, Manager of the respondent-Bank, himself appeared in the witness-box and proved the said document. Therefore, mere omission of his full name would not lessen the authenticity of the contents of this document and would not relegate it to such a position as it should be ignored from consideration. No evidence indicating that the outstanding debt had been discharged by payment was adduced by the appellants. The issue of mortgaging the properties is set at rest with Mian Fazal Din's admission in his letter of the 26th April, 1971, Exh.
P.D., which he wrote to the respondent. He said that 'as against this amount of Rs. 4 lacs against loans my securities with you are for about 14 lacs of rupees. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the appellants could not absolve the appellants of the liability of payment of the amount of loan. Nevertheless, he maintained that the learned trial Court had wrongly calculated the amount of pendente lite interest. This fact was readily admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The two Advocates calculated the amount of pendente lite interest at Rs.4,11,177. With the addition of costs of Rs.41,250 the total decretal sum due comes to Rs.8,03,862.
This figure is to be substituted for Rs.10,21,760.01 arrived at by the learned Court and which the learned counsel for the parties agreed was not correct. Accordingly this appeal is partially accepted and the preliminary decree is modified to the extent that the defendants-appellants are to pay Rs. 8,03,862 instead of Rs.10,21,760.01 to the plaintiff-respondent. The parties are left to bear their own costs.