A sporadic money lending does not constitute a business; appropriate evidence must be presented to challenge loan authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent/defendant and Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for respondent/appellant/plaintiff on admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2024 in A.S.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District at Kothagudem (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) allowing the Appeal Suit with costs throughout setting aside impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2023 in O.S.No.37 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein a suit filed for recovery of money has been dismissed. I.A.No.2 of 2025 in the present appeal is preferred to condone delay of (111) days in filing of the Second Appeal.

3. The background facts leading to the filing of the suit are that there is acquaintance between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/ plaintiff and on the basis of said acquaintance, the appellant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.07.2016 from the respondent with a promise to repay the amount with interest @ 24% per annum on demand. In proof of said transaction, a pronote is executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. In spite of repeated demands, the appellant failed to repay the borrowed amount and therefore, a suit for recovery of amount is filed. The appellant herein contested the suit by filing written statement denying any money lending transaction or loan transaction in totality claiming that the pronote produced is a forged and fabricated document. Subsequently, an additional written statement is filed stating that the respondent is engaged in a money lending business without license and therefore, the promissory note cannot be a basis for filing suit for recovery of money.

4. The fact situation coupled with the oral evidence of the parties is taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court and it is held that the respondent herein has proven execution of pronote, but there is failure on the part of the appellant in proving forgery. It is held that when the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note for comparison of signature of the appellant with admitted signatures on the written statement, vakalath and other documents, when said petition was dismissed, the appellant did not challenge said order and said order has attained finality. Once the appellant did not choose to challenge the dismissal order in the Interlocutory Application filed to send the pronote for examination by Handwriting Expert, it is held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof about the pronote being a forged document. However, on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent is hit by Section 9 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 Fasli i.e. doing money lending business without license, the suit has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred First Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court vide A.S.No.31 of 2023.

5. The First Appellate court has examined the case of the respondent/plaintiff about the loan transaction as evidenced by Ex.A1 Pronote holding that the appellant/defendant has taken inconsistent pleas in her written statement about the loan transaction. Firstly, the appellant has denied money transaction and stated that Ex.A1 pronote is a forged document. Alternatively, a plea is taken that the transaction is hit by Section 9 of A.P/Telangana Money Lending Act. During evi