Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,870/ - has been decreed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff filed the suit with the averments that the defendant is involved in the business of gold and silver and as he required money for his business, he obtained a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - from the plaintiff on 01.04.1983 for interest @ 1% per month vide a cheque and executed a document in his favour, however, despite repeated reminders, the amount has not been paid so far, and sought decree for the principle sum of Rs. 8,000/ - plus interest amounting to Rs. 2, 870/ -. A written statement was filed by the appellant denying the receipt of any sum, cheque and execution of any document. It was, inter alia stated that the plaintiff is involved in business of money lending and he does not have any licence and, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) ON the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed six issues. On behalf of plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was produced. On behalf of appellant he himself was examined.;