Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 31-3-2005 passed by 5th
Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No. 51-B/2003 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery
of money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest with cost of the suit.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- stating that he has advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @
2.5% monthly payable in advance to the appellant. The amount of interest has been paid from time to time, but subsequently appellant/defendant
stopped paying the interest of the amount, therefore, respondent/plaintiff issued a legal notice to him on 30-5-2002 for repayment of the amount and
when no amount has been paid he filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount which is decreed by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent is not registered under Money Lenders Act, 1934 (for short, the Act, 1934""),
therefore, he is not entitled to file a suit against the appellant. He would further submit that as the account of interest is not provided by the respondent,
therefore, interest cannot be recovered by him as per the provisions of the Act, 1934.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellant has admitted in his written statement that the
appellant is under obligation to repay the amount. He would further submit that the respondent is not a money lender, therefore, he is not required to
maintain record under the Act, 1934. The appellant has not rebutted the evidence adduced by the respondent side, therefore, finding arrived at by the
trial court is not liable to be interfered with while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of court below including the judgment and decree.
6. The first question for consideration of this court is whether the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent. From the
written statement of respondent (para 5-A and 5-B) it is established that loan was advanced to the appellant through account payee cheque. As per
version of PW/2 Prajay Gwalre, Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the appellant by way of account payee cheque. Statement of this witness is unrebutted.
Looking to the evidence and statements of the parties, it is established that loan was advanced to the appellant. It is not a case of the respondent that
he is a money lender, therefore, he is not required to maintain record as per Act, 1934. From the statement of Prajay Gwalre (PW/2) it is established
that even after notice the amount was not repaid. As per paint averment, interest of the amount was Rs. 86,250/- but respondent claimed interest to
the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
7. The trial Court after assessing the evidence recorded finding that the appellant is liable to pay the principal amount and interest to the tune of
Rs.25,000/- with cost of litigation. After re-assessing the evidence this court has no reason to record finding that the respondent is a money lender.
The evidence of respondent side is unrebutted that is why the trial court recoded finding in favour of the respondent. This court has no reason to
record a contrary finding. Issue of limitation is also raised by the appellant before the trial court and the trial court after elaborate discussion opined
that interest was paid through cheque on 4-8-1999 which is acknowledgement of debt and limitation is extended upto that date i.e., 4-8-1999. Suit was
filed on 31-7-2002 which is within limitation. Finding of the trial court is based on proper reasoning, therefore, same is not liable to be interfered with
while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is not sustainable. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the decree is passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent as under:
i) The appeal is dismissed with cost.
ii) Appellant to bear the cost of respondent through out.
iii) Pleader's fee, if certified, as per schedule or whichever is less.
iv) A decree be drawn up accordingly.