A second appeal is maintainable only when suits' values exceed jurisdiction limits of Small Causes Courts, affirming limitations imposed by Section 102 CPC.

Judgment :

1. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1997 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Case No.15/96, whereby, the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railmagra (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Trial Court’) dated 18.08.1993 in Case No.1/1889 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed by the learned First Appellate Court for an amount of Rs.2,144/-.

2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.2,144/- on 05.09.1988, wherein, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in the business of silver items and had taken an amount of Rs.1,885/- as loan from the plaintiff qua which an entry was made in the cash book ‘bahi’ of the plaintiff on 11.09.1985. A certain amount of loan was paid back by the defendant which was also entered in the cash book ‘bahi’. Out of total loan amount of Rs.2,080/-, an amount of Rs.500/- paid by the defendant had been adjusted and there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,580/- as principal, which had not been paid inspite of the repeated request. On the said amount, according to the agreement, plaintiff claimed an interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per year which comes out to be Rs.544/- and thus, the suit was filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,144/-

3. The defendant filed the reply denying the averments of the plaint and further stated that the plaintiff is a money-lender having no licence. After settlement, an amount of Rs.1,885/- was balance which has been repaid by the defendant and all the entries were entered in the account books of the defendant. The suit is time barred.

4. In additional plea, defendant further contended that the plaintiff is a money-lender and in absence of licence, the suit is not maintainable.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

^^1- vk;k izfroknh us oknh ds i{k esa 2042 dk Hkknok cnh X;kjl dks 1885@& dk bdjkj fu"ikfnr fd;k \ -------oknh 

2- vk;k bl ds i'pkr QnZu QnZu dqy 195@& oknh ls izfroknh us vkSj izkIr fd;s \ ------oknh

3- vk;k izfroknh us dqy 2080@& isVs 500@& :i;k dh vnk;xh oknh dks dh ,oa 'ks"k :i;k 1580@& oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ------oknh

4- vk;k oknh lkgwdkjh lwn 1 :i;k izfrekg izfr lSDMk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ -------oknh

5- vk;k oknh euh ysf.Mx dk O;olk; djrk gS ,oa 22&23 /kkjk euh ysf.Max dh ikyuk ugha dh ftlls okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ -------oknh

6- nknjlh D;k gksxh \^^

6. The learned Trial Court decided Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No.5 was decided against the plaintiff and on the basis of the finding of Issue No.5, the suit was dismissed.

7. The plaintiff preferred the first appeal and the learned First Appellate Court decided the Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.4 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue no.5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and by reversing the finding of Issue No.5, the learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.2,144/-.

8. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant, in which the following substantial questions of law were framed on 08.08.1997, which are reproduced as under :

“(i) WHETHER learned trial court had correctly dismissed the suit for recovery of money due to non-compliance of the provisions of Sec.22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lending Act, 1963 and learned lower appellate court has committed substantial er