The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether, without there being an issue framed as to whether the plaintiff is a money-lender or not, the suit could have been proceed with?

2. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the above substantial question of law, may be noticed as under:

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.4 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sathupally, which was laid for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,500/- with future interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he knows the defendant since a long time. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from him on 14-2-1988 at Sathupally, Khammam district and executed a promissory note in his favour promising to repay the entire amount with interest at 24% per annum. When the defendant did not repay any amount in spite of demand made by him, he got issued two registered notices through his Advocate on 30-7-1990 and 26-9-1990 demanding the defendant to