JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. - Appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 12-B/2005 whereby and whereunder, he dismissed the suit of appellant.

2. This is admitted by respondent that name, address and other particulars of him and appellant shown in the title of the plaint are true, he is posted at Bajaj Electrical Company Limited, Dungaji Colony Raipur, he and appellant had good relations because they were resident of same colony, appellant had taken his sign on white paper, appellant had sent him a registered notice dated 06.08.1999 through advocate, he had replied the said notice on 24.08.1999.

3. In brief the appellant's case is that on 11.01.1997 respondent had taken loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and executed a promissory note. The interest was 2% monthly. He paid him interest till December, 1998. Despite the demand he did not pay the due amount, appellant is money lender.

4. In brief the respondent's case is that except the admitted facts other facts of plaint are denied by him. He had never taken Rs.2,00,000/- as loan from appellant, he had not signed any promissory note, he had signed on a white paper as a witness regarding loan transaction of Shri K.K. Mukherjee, to whom loan was given by appellant.

5. Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit of appellant, being aggrieved he preferred this regular appeal.

6. In brief, the case of appellant regarding instant appeal is that as per the requirement of the Section 47 of the Evidence Act he has proved the execution of promissory note, respondent had not specifically stated that his sign is not on allegedly disputed promissory note. His application for examination of hand writing expert was opposed by him. In Ex.D-1 it has been mentioned that appellant had a blank promissory note on which the signature was similar to his signature. Trial Court overlooked presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

7. Points for determination :- There are following points for determination in the case in hand-

(1) Whether respondent had obtained loan of Rs. 2 lacs from the appellant on 11-1-1997 along with 2% monthly interest and executed promissory note

(2) Whether appellant had not complied with the provision of Clause (a) and Clasue (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of CG Money Lenders Act, 1934 (in short 'Act of 1934')

(3) Whether suit of appellant is not maintainable as per the provision of Section 11-H of the Act of 1934

(4) Whether appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2,48,000/- from respondent

(5) Relief and costs.

Point for determination No. (1)- Finding with reasons :-

8. P.W. 2 Badri Prasad Mishra says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that on 11-1-1997 he had given loan of Rs. 2 lacs to respondent who executed promissory note Ex. P-1, Ex. P-1 was written by P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Jaiswal. Respondent singed on it which is shown by "B to B", he also wrote date in his handwriting shown by "A to A", rate of interest was 2% monthly.

9. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Jaiswal says in para 1 and 2 of his statement given on oath that in his presence appellant had given Rs. 2 lacs to respondent, the interest was fixed 2% monthly. Ex. P-1 was written by him. Respondent endorsed date on it as "A to A" and signed on "B to B".

10. D.W. 1 Moti Singh says in para 2 and 3 of his statement given on oath that he had not taken any loan from the appellant, he had signed as surety on paper of loan transaction of K.K. Mukharjee, who absconded, appellant threatened him by showing some document bearing signature like his that he will proceed for recovery of money against him.

11. D.W. 2 Kunwar Lal Sahu says in para 1 and 2 of his statement given on oath that respondent had not taken any loan from appellant, respondent had provided the loan to Mukharjee from appellant, when Mukharjee did not pay the loan amount, appellant told respondent that he shall pay the am