( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th August, 1998 passed by the Court of Shri -- M. Malik, Additional District Judge, Delhi granting a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for Rs. 71,500. 00 (interest calculated at the rate of 1-1/2% per month) with proportionate costs and pendente lite an future interest at the same rate from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that he respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that he had borrowed a total sum of Rs. 48,000. 00 through four different cheques; that he had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month; that neither principal amount nor interest thereon was paid, despite notice dated 1st May, 1988 to the appellant and a decree of Rs. 95,000. 00 with costs and pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 3% per month till realisation was sought. Appellant in the written statement denied the allegations, inter alia, pleading therein that the respondent was doing the business of money lending without any licence; loan acknowledgement receipts being unstamped were not admissible in law; that on 13th January, 1986 he had returned an amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 , taken on 24th October, 1985 by him from the respondent. It was claimed that the signatures on the four receipts in respect of the said four cheques were forged by the respondent and that the father of the respondent and the appellant used to make financial adjustments and no consideration was received by the appellant in respect of the cheques pleaded in the suit.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is running the business of money-lending and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the acknowledgement receipts are unstamped and inadmissible in evidence? OPD

4. Whether proper court fees has not been paid on the plaint, as alleged in the written statement? OPD

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the defendant has paid the loan amount, as claimed by the plaintiff in para 1 of the plaint through cheque dated 12th June. 1986? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has advanced the loans to the defendant on the various dates as alleged in the plaint? OPP

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest? If so, at what rate? OPP

9. Relief. "

( 4 ) LEARNED trial Court decided all the issues against the appellant and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. With regard to the interest, the trial Court held that the respondent/appellant was entitled to interest at the rate of 1- 1/2% per month.

( 5 ) AT the admission stage we have heard Mr. S. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. P. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent and have been taken through the record.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that Ex. P1, Power of Attorney, did not authorise PW2, S. K. Jain to give statement on behalf of the respondent therefore his statement should not be considered; admittedly all the receipts were in the hand-writing of the father of the appellant. It was further argued that respondent deliberately made a false statement by denying his writing on bank pay-in-slips Ex. DW 2/1 to DW 2/6 on the basis of which suit amounts were deposited in the account of the appellant, he was however completely belied by the evidence of the hand-writing expert in this regard, therefore his evidence cannot be relied. It was argued that receipts Ex. Public Witness 2/3 to Public Witness 2/5 did not bear signatures of the appellant, on the revenue stamps, therefore the documents were not admissible; that there was no agreement between the appellant and the respondent regarding rate of interest payable;