JUDGMENT

1. Two substantial questions of law that arise in this second appeal are;

(a) Whether the photostat copy (Xerox copy) compared with the original, admissible as secondary evidence, if other conditions required for the production of secondary evidence are met?

(b) Whether Sec. 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, mandates the production of money lender's licence, to maintain a suit to recover the money lent, by a money lender, if the amount lent is more than rupees three thousand and lent through a negotiable instrument, other than the promissory note?

2. Ratnavarma Padival the plaintiff, claimed that on 19/3/1999, he lent, the defendant Rathnavarma Ajri, Rs.3.00 lakhs through a cheque, and the defendant's cheque dtd. 30/3/1999, issued towards repayment of the loan is dishonoured.

3. The defendant denied the alleged loan transaction. His defence is that the plaintiff misused the blank cheques issued by the defendant, in his long-standing business relationship with the plaintiff, as the defendant refused to sell the shares of the Karnataka theatre, which the plaintiff insisted.

4. The suit filed to recover the alleged loan is decreed. The trial court awarded interest @