JUDGMENT 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/-. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by a cheque on 01.04.1983 from the plaintiff vide Ex.-1, the interest @ 1% per month was agreed and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,870/- towards interest was due; the defendant was not entitled for instalments @ Rs. 25/- per month; the suit was within limitation and ultimately granted decree as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court fell in error in deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was not in possession of licence under the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 7. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was not in possession of licence under the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 7. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The defendant in order to deny the transaction between him and the plaintiff took a plea that he usually puts his signatures in Hindi and as the documents Ex.-2 i.e. the counter foil of the cheque and Ex.1 i.e. the agreement contains his signatures in English, therefore, it cannot be said that he has obtained loan from the plaintiff. However, the trial court found that though the defendant has put his signatures on the written statement in Hindi, on the summon of the suit marked as Ex.-6, he has put his signatures in English and the said signatures were similar to those appearing on Ex.1 and Ex.2. Further, the plaintiff produced PW-2 Govind Ram, the Bank Manager, who deposed that the cheque was encashed. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No.1 cannot be said to be perverse on any ground. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any material aspect in the documents and/or the testimony of the witnesses indicating otherwise. 11. So far as the plea regarding the absence of licence under the Act is concerned, the plaintiff specifically denied in his statements that he was not involved in business of money lending and he lent money to anybody in the past. When the defendant was asked in cross-examination to enumerate as to whom the plaintiff has lent money and at what rate, he stated that he was not aware as to whom money was lent and he cannot point out any name and, therefore, the trial court was justified in coming to the finding that the allegation made by the defendant that plaintiff was involved in business of money lending had no basis. The finding recorded by the trial court is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the same, therefore, does not call for any interference.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******