The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's unlicensed money lending business led to the dismissal of the suit under the Bombay Money Lenders Act.

1. This Appeal is preferred by the original defendant against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Summary Suit No.944 of 1992 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

2. To state in brief, it is case of the plaintiff that on 25.1.1988, he had advanced an amount of Rs.37,000/- to the defendant, had had agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. Accordingly, the defendant he had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to make repayment of the amount, but he paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 15.5.1989 and thereafter he issued two cheques of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- on 3.3.1990 and 21.5.1990 respectively. Both these cheques were dishonoured and in respect of the same the plaintiff has taken action against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After adjustment of the said amount of Rs.14,000/-, the defendant was liable to pay balance amount of Rs.23,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the interest on the amount till the date of filing the suit would be Rs.18,000/-. Therefore, he claimed total amount of Rs.41,000/-. Summary Suit was filed on 19.12.1991 for recovery of the amount.

3. The defendant was granted leave to defend the suit. According to him, he had taken loan of Rs.20,000/- on 18.5.1985 from the plaintiff and at that time he had executed a promissory note. Besides obtaining his signature on the promissory note, the plaintiff had also obtained signatures of the defendant on the revenue stamps affixed on blank papers and he has misused the said signature for the purpose of creating the promissory note dated 25.1.1988 against him. He contends that he had repaid the amount of Rs.15,000/- on 21.7.1986 and thereafter he had paid Rs.3,000/- on 8.3.1990 and Rs.6,000/- on 15.5.1989. According to him, towards the balance amount and interest, he had issued a cheque of Rs.6,000/- on 21.5.1990 and that cheque was dishonoured. He denied that he had taken loan of Rs.37,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.1.1988 and that he had executed the fresh promissory note in respect of that loan. He further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. According to him, the plaintiff is a money lender carrying on business of money lending without licence and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Several issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one Mohanlal Pandya as PW-2. After hearing the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant had obtained loan of Rs.37,000/- on 25.1.1988 and had executed a promissory note in respect of that loan. The plaintiff has also proved part-payments in respect of the loan. The contention of the defendant that the repayments made by him were in respect of the earlier loan of 1985 came to be rejected. The trial Court also held that the suit is within limitation. According to the trial Court, this was the loan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant, who is a businessman and therefore the suit is not hit by Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. With this finding, the learned trial Court passed a decree against the defendant for repayment of Rs.41,000/-. The defendant was further directed to pay future interest from the date of filing the suit till realization of the amount at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.23,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the defendant has preferred the present Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Kalambukadam, the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant and the plaintiff/respondent, who is a party in person. Perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court.

6. Following points arise for my determination and I record my findings against them for the reasons given below :-

POINTS FINDING

(i) Does the plaintiff prove that Yes

the defendant had obtained loan of

Rs.37,000/- from him