1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Dewas in Civil Suit No. 4 -B/2007, whereby the suit filed by the respondent for realization of Rs. 2,33,920/- was decreed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- was awarded alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 16.12.2003, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the appellant on 15.12.2006 for realization of Rs. 2,33,920/- alleging that appellant was in need of money hence respondent lent a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- to the appellant on 16.12.2003. It was alleged that appellant executed promissory note in favour of respondent whereby appellant agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest @ 36% P.A. It was alleged that as per the promissory note appellant agreed to repay the amount alongwith interest. Further case of the respondent was that respondent issued a notice to the appellant on 24.11.2006, which was duly received by Ramprasad who is living with the appellant. It was alleged that inspite of notice the loan amount alongwith interest was not paid to the respondent. It was alleged that respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,33,920/- which includes principal and interest.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing the written statement, wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was alleged in the written statement that on 16.12.2003 no amount was taken as loan by the appellant. Appellant also denied the execution of promissory note. It was alleged that father of the appellant took loan from the respondent and executed the promissory note in favour of respondent. It was alleged that the loan was repaid by the father of the appellant. It was alleged that at that time respondent assured that promissory note shall be returned as the same are kept at Indore. It was alleged that there is overwriting on the promissory note and there is an interpolation in the year. It was further alleged that respondent is a moneylender and is lending money on a higher rate of interest. It was alleged that respondent has lent the money to member of persons, whose names were mentioned in Para No. 16 in the statement. It was prayed that the suit filed by the respondent be passed. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence learned Trial Court decreed the suit in part and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that learned Court below committed error in passing the decree against the appellant. Learned counsel submits that learned trial Court failed to consider that the alleged promissory note bears the date as 16.12.2003, while the respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that no promissory note was executed on 16.12.2003. It is submitted that since the respondent himself has stated that no promissory note was executed on 16.12.2003, therefore, learned Court below committed error in decreeing the suit. Learned counsel further submits that learned Court below committed error in holding that there was no overwriting in the promissory note. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court erred in awarding the interest @ 9% P.A. while it was not a commercial transaction.

5. Shri A. Kanchwala, learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below and submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Court below has decreed the suit, which requires no interference.

6. From perusal of the record it appears that to prove the case respondent has filed the promissory note Exh. P-l, notice Exh. P-2 and also examined himself as PW 1 and Sureshchandra (PW 2), while appellant has examined himself as DW 1. From the statement of Omprakash, who is respondent herein, it is evident that respondent has lent the money to other persons as w