Second appeals in suits below ₹3,000 are not maintainable under Section 102 CPC; compliance with statutory requirements is essential for recovery suits.

Judgment :

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.20/91, whereby, the appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.02.1989 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Amet (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in Original Civil Suit No.12/87 has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant had been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs.2,850/-. In original suit filed on 15.03.1979, the plaintiff stated that he had given a loan of Rs.2,100/- on 16.03.1976 with a condition of interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per month. A note was executed. As per the note, no amount of principal as well as the interest had been paid and according to the condition, interest amounting to Rs.750/- was outstanding and therefore claimed a total amount of Rs.2,850/-

i.e. Rs.2,100/- as principal and Rs.750/- as interest was claimed.

3. The defendant in his reply denied the averments of plaint and contended that plaintiff has fabricated his signatures and a false and fabricated note has been created. The defendant also stated that against the loan, amounts have been repaid and there is no other outstanding amount left to be paid. Further, the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1963’) and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The pro-note has been written by one Parmanand and thus, there is no liability of Gopilal and hence, prayed that suit may be rejected.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the following six issues, which are reproduced as under:

^^1- vk;k izfroknh us oknh ds fglkc ds iqjkuk cdk;k ds :i;k 2100@& fnukad 16-3-76 dks Lohdkj djds ,d nLrkost oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k \

2- vk;k oknh ,d :i;k lSadM+k izfrekg dh nj ls C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

3- vk;k nLrkost ijekuan dh vksj ls fy[kk gqvk gksus ls izfroknh xksih yky dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha jgrk gS \

4- vk;k oknh euhysaMj gS o euhysUMhax yk;lsUl u gksus ls ,oa euh ysUMhax ,DV dh /kkjk 22 o 23 dh ikyuk oknh ds }kjk ugha djus ls nkok oknh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \

5- vk;k izfroknh ds fo'ks"k mRrj ds iSjk ua- 5 ds vuqlkj oknh dks 4175@& :i;k dh vnk;xh gks pqdh gS \

6- vuqrks"k \^^

5. The Learned Trial Court decided Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.3 was also decided in the manner that since Parmanand was found to be dead, therefore, the pro-note could not have been executed by him. Issue No.4 was decided against the defendant. Issue No.5 was decided against the defendant and under Issue No.6, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,100/- along with interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.03.1976 till filing of suit and thereafter interest on principal amount of Rs.2,100/-.

6. The defendant-respondent aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.1989 preferred a first appeal, which came to be decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.1995.

7. The learned First Appellate Court also decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was again decided in favour of the plainti