This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 593/1995, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- with cost and interest @ Rs.1.20 per hundred per month.

2. Skeletal Material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- against the defendant-appellant in the Court of District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The plaintiff-respondent averred in the plaint that the defendant- appellant took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him on interest @ Rs.1.20 paise per hundred per month and executed a receipt. When the defendant did not pay the amount despite demand, the plaintiff sent a notice through his advocate to the defendant which was served upon him but he did not pay the amount and sent reply with wrong facts, thus cause of action arose. The plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest Rs. 4,200/- totalling to Rs. 14,200/- from the defendant and prayed to decree the suit alongwith cost and interest.

3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that he never took any loan from the plaintiff and did not execute any receipt. In additional pleas, the defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff is doing the business of money lending without licence, thus the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lending through broker Gopal Kothari, who used to obtain advance receipt from the defendant but he never gave money to him against the receipt issued by him in favour of the plaintiff. Gopal Kothari is a necessary party thus, the suit suffers from misjoinder of parties and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.

4. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues.

5. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Yogendra Kumar, PW-2 Pradhyuman Kumar in his evidence and got four documents exhibited in support of his case. Defendant examined DW-1 Jai Kumar Somani, DW-2 Prem Biyani, DW-3 Pramod Jain in his evidence and got 10 documents exhibited in support of his case.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 29/03/1996 against the defendant-appellant for Rs. 14,200/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Court, the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in believing the statements of PW-1 Yogendra Kumar, PW-2 Pradhyuman Kumar and not believing the statements of DW-1 Jai Kumar, DW-2 Prem Biyani, DW-3 Pramod Jain and thereby wrongly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant- appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that it is proved from the evidence available on record that plaintiff is doing the business of money lending but he has no licence of money lending business, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the defendant has clearly stated in his written statement that he never took loan from the plaintiff as alleged in the suit and also pleaded that Mr. Gopal Kothari used to obtain advance receipt of the amount from the defendant but he never brought and paid the money of any receipt to him and the plaintiff has filed the suit on basis of a forged receipt. But the learned trial Court erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiff and prayed to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and to dismiss the suit with costs throughout.

10. On the other hand, learn