Sri. P. Nishan Unni., learned counsel for the appellant has

appeared in person.

2.

This is an appeal from the Court of Principal District

Judge, Chikmagalur.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial

Court.

4.

The brief facts are these:

It is stated that on 08.10.2002, the defendant borrowed a

sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) from the

plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate

of 21% per annum and accordingly executed an on-demand

promissory note and cash consideration receipt in favor of the

plaintiff. It is said that despite repeated demands the defendant

did not repay the amount. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal

notice on 01.09.2004 asking the defendant to repay the

amount, but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to

- 3 -

take shelter under the Court of law and initiated action for

recovery of money.

After the service of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement.

The defendant denied the plaint averments. He contended that

he never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and never

agreed to repay the same. According to the defendant, the

plaintiff and other members conducted a chit fund at

Singatagere Village, Kadur Taluk. He is also a member of the

Chit Fund and the Chit fund consisted of 25 members. He also

contended that during the Chit Fund scheme, the plaintiff and

other members used to obtain his signature on blank papers.

Hence, it was sought to contend that the plaintiff made use of

the signatures on the blank papers and filed the suit. Among

other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court

framed the following:

- 4 -

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant

borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him on 18.10.2002

for his family necessity agreeing to repay the

same with interest at 21% per annum and

executed on-demand promissory note and

consideration receipt?

2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff

had obtained his signatures on blank papers in

the chit fund business at Singatagere and has

concocted the documents?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover

Rs.56,900/- from the defendant?

4. What decree or order?

To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff examined himself

as PW1 and two witnesses as PW2 & 3 and produced four

documents which were marked at Exs.P.1 to P4. On the other

hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and a witness

as DW2 and produced three documents which were marked at

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.

- 5 -

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court decreed the suit

and held that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of

Rs.56,900/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Thousand and Nine Hundred

only) with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of

suit till recovery of the amount. Aggrieved by the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment

and Decree of the Trial Court. Hence this regular second

appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC.

6.

Sri. P. Nishan Unni., learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Judgments and Decrees of the Trial

Court and the Appellate Court are contrary to the law and the

evidence on record, hence the same are liable to be set aside.

Next, he submits that the Courts have failed to appreciate

that an issue ought to have been framed regarding the

applicability of the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act,

1961.

A further submission is made that the Courts have not

considered the defense of the defendant as raised in the written

- 6 -

statement. It is also contended that the plaintiff had no

financial capacity to lend the money.

Learned counsel also submits that there is a delay of

2926 days in filing the appeal. The delay is neither wanton nor

with any malafide intention. No loss or prejudice will be caused

to the other side if the d