JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 593/1995, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- with cost and interest @ Rs.1.20 per hundred per month. 2. Skeletal Material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 14,200/- against the defendant-appellant in the Court of District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The plaintiff-respondent averred in the plaint that the defendant- appellant took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him on interest @ Rs.1.20 paise per hundred per month and executed a receipt. When the defendant did not pay the amount despite demand, the plaintiff sent a notice through his advocate to the defendant which was served upon him but he did not pay the amount and sent reply with wrong facts, thus cause of action arose. The plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest Rs. 4,200/- totalling to Rs. 14,200/- from the defendant and prayed to decree the suit alongwith cost and interest. 3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that he never took any loan from the plaintiff and did not execute any receipt. In additional pleas, the defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff is doing the business of money lending without licence, thus the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lending through broker Gopal Kothari, who used to obtain advance receipt from the defendant but he never gave money to him against the receipt issued by him in favour of the plaintiff. Gopal Kothari is a necessary party thus, the suit suffers from misjoinder of parties and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 4. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. 5. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Yogendra Kumar, PW-2 Pradhyuman Kumar in his evidence and got four documents exhibited in support of his case. 4. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. 5. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Yogendra Kumar, PW-2 Pradhyuman Kumar in his evidence and got four documents exhibited in support of his case. Defendant examined DW-1 Jai Kumar Somani, DW-2 Prem Biyani, DW-3 Pramod Jain in his evidence and got 10 documents exhibited in support of his case. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 29/03/1996 against the defendant-appellant for Rs. 14,200/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Court, the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in believing the statements of PW-1 Yogendra Kumar, PW-2 Pradhyuman Kumar and not believing the statements of DW-1 Jai Kumar, DW-2 Prem Biyani, DW-3 Pramod Jain and thereby wrongly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant- appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that it is proved from the evidence available on record that plaintiff is doing the business of money lending but he has no licence of money lending business, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the defendant has clearly stated in his written statement that he never took loan from the plaintiff as alleged in the suit and also pleaded that Mr. Gopal Kothari used to obtain advance receipt of the amount from the defendant but he never brought and paid the money of any receipt to him and the plaintiff has filed the suit on basis of a forged receipt. But the learned trial Court erroneously decreed the suit of the plaintiff and prayed to accept the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and to dismiss the suit with costs throughout. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The suit is based on document Ex-1 executed by the defendant on obtaining the loan amount. It is admitted fact that the defendant is a businessman. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The suit is based on document Ex-1 executed by the defendant on obtaining the loan amount. It is admitted fact that the defendant is a businessman. As the loan was taken by the defendant for his business purposes, therefore provisions of Rajasthan Money Lending Act, 1963 do not apply in the instant case. Learned counsel also contended that Gopal Kothari is not a necessary party in the suit by any stretch of imagination and prayed to dismiss the appeal with cost being devoid of merits. 11. We gave our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 12. The plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit against the defendant-appellant on the basis of receipt Ex-1 alleged to be written and signed by the defendant-appellant on 02/05/1987 in favour of plaintiff. In this respect, PW-1 Yogendra Kumar who is plaintiff, has stated in his statement recorded in Court that on 02/05/1987, Jai Kumar took loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him on interest @ Rs.1.20 paise per hundred per month and executed a receipt Ex-1 on his letter head, placed seal of his firm and signed in his presence. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Gopal Kothari, father of the witness, defendant and the witness himself were present when the money was given to the defendant. He didn't know the defendant prior to the transaction but he was known to his father. The plaintiff also examined his father Pradhyuman Kumar as PW-2, who also gave similar statement as given by PW-1 Yogendra Kumar. In rebuttal, DW-1 Jai Kumar Somani, the defendant has stated in his statement recorded in Court that he never took any amount on loan from the plaintiff. He used to take loan through Gopal Ratan Kothari, thus he knows him. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he has no animosity with the plaintiff and broker Gopal Kothari. He signed on blank paper and gave the same to Gopal in advance, to borrow money. Gopal Kothari did not return the receipt when asked and said that the receipt has been lost. 13. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he has no animosity with the plaintiff and broker Gopal Kothari. He signed on blank paper and gave the same to Gopal in advance, to borrow money. Gopal Kothari did not return the receipt when asked and said that the receipt has been lost. 13. DW-2 Prem Biyani stated that PW-1 Yogendra Kumar used to give loan through Gopal Ratan who is a broker. Some altercation took place between Jai Kumar and Gopal regarding loan document (Chitthi) and amount. The similar statement has been given by DW-3 Pramod Jain. 14. In written statement as well as in statement recorded in Court, the defendant has clearly denied the fact of taking loan of any amount from the plaintiff and also the fact of execution of receipt Ex-1. Learned trial Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Paachulal Vs. Ganeshlal Maheshwari reported in 1972 WLN Pt. I page 658 and taking support from Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, compared the disputed signatures of the defendant on Ex.1 with his admitted signatures on (i) written statement dated 27/09/1991, (ii) Vakalatnama dated 27/11/1990 and (iii) statements of the defendant recorded in Court as DW-1 and came to the conclusion that alleged signatures of the defendant on Ex-1 and admitted signatures of the defendant on aforesaid documents are similar. Learned trial Court found the evidence produced by the plaintiff to be trustworthy and statements of the defendant to be not believable. It is pertinent to note that there is no animosity of the defendant with the plaintiff and Gopal Ratan. In statement recorded in Court, the defendant has stated that he never signed blank paper and gave to Gopal, whereas in written statement he pleaded that the plaintiff carries on business of money lending through broker Gopal Kothari and Gopal Kothari used to obtain advance receipts from the defendant but he never gave money to him against the receipt executed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also pleaded that when the receipt was demanded back from Gopal Kothari, he said that the receipt has been lost. From pleadings of the defendant, it appears that he indirectly admitted the fact of execution of the receipt in favour of the plaintiff for taking loan through broker Gopal Kothari. 15. The defendant also pleaded that when the receipt was demanded back from Gopal Kothari, he said that the receipt has been lost. From pleadings of the defendant, it appears that he indirectly admitted the fact of execution of the receipt in favour of the plaintiff for taking loan through broker Gopal Kothari. 15. In view of above and attending circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has committed no error in comparing the disputed signature of the defendant on Ex-1 with his admitted signatures on written statement, Vakalatnama and statement recorded in Court and to conclude that the disputed signature of the defendant on receipt Ex-1 and his admitted signatures on aforesaid documents are similar. 16. Now, we discuss the requirement of money lending licence and relevant provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act in this regard. It is neither the case of the plaintiff nor the defendant that he took loan for his personal necessities. The defendant has pleaded that the annual turn over of his business is in crores of rupees and he admitted that he is a trader dealing in sale of Freeze, TV, VCR, Washing Machine etc. 17. The defendant produced copies of the various plaints filed by the plaintiff in the Courts against various persons alleged to have taken loan from the plaintiff for business purpose and got them exhibited as Ex-A-1 to Ex-A-9. The plaintiff has not denied the fact of filing plaints Ex-A-1 to Ex-A-9 in Courts against several persons, thus, it is proved that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending money to traders. It is not disputed that plaintiff is not having money lending licence under Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. It will be useful to consider the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. 18. It is not disputed that plaintiff is not having money lending licence under Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. It will be useful to consider the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. 18. Word 'loan' has been defined in sub-Section (9) of Section 2 of the Act, which is as under :- (9) 'loan' means an advance at interest, whether of money or in kind, but does not include- (a) a deposit of money or other property in a Government Post Office Savings Bank or in any other bank or in a company or with a co- operative society; (b) a loan to or by, or a deposit with, any society or association registered or deemed to be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 or any other enactment, relating to a public, religious or charitable object; (c) a loan advanced by Government or by any local authority authorised by Government; (d) a loan advanced to a Government servant from a fund established for the welfare and assistance of Government servants and which is sanctioned by the State Government; (e) a loan advanced by a co-operative society; (f) an advance made to a subscriber to, or a depositor in, a Provident Fund from the amount standing to his credit in the fund in accordance with the rules of the fund; (g) a loan to or by an insurance company as defined in the Insurance Act, 1938 (Central Act IV of 1938); (h) a loan to, or by a bank; (i) an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Central Act XXVI of 1881) other than a promissory note; (j) except for the purposes of section 27 and 29- (i) a loan to a trader, or (ii) a loan to a money-lender who holds a valid licence; Word 'trader' has been defined in sub-Section (16) of Section 2 of the Act which is as under:- (16) 'trader' means a persons who in the regular course of business buys and sells goods or other property, whether movable or immovable, and includes- (a) a whole-sale or retail merchant, (b) a commission agent, (c) a broker, (d) a manufacturer, (e) a contractor, and (f) a factory owner, but does not include an artisan or a person who sells his agricultural produce or cattle or buys agricultural produce or cattle for his use. Explanation -For the purposes of clause (16) an 'artisan' means a person who does not employ more than ten workers in a manufacturing process on any one day of the twelve months immediately preceding. 11. Dismissal of suit by money-lender not holding licence.- (1) Where a suit to which this Act applies is filed by a money-lender and the court in which it is filed is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced, the money-lender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit forthwith without going into the merits of the claim and shall order the refund of the security, if any, without repayment of the loan. (2) Nothing in this section shall affect- (a) suits pending in any court on the date of the commencement of the Rajasthan Money- lenders (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, which may be disposed of according to the law existing immediately before such commencement; (b) suits in respect of loans advanced by a money-lender before the date on which this Act came into force, and (c) the powers of the Court of Wards or an Official Assignee or a receiver or an administrator or a court under the law relating to insolvency for the time being in force or a liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956 to release the property of a money-lender. 19. Section 22 of the Act casts a duty on the money-lender to keep and maintain the account books in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and to furnish copies thereof in the prescribed manner to the debtor within 3 months from the date on which the loan is made under the scheme of the Act. 20. Section 23 of the Act requires the money-lender to deliver or cause to be delivered every year to each of his debtors a legible statement of such debtor's account signed by the money- lender or his agent of any amount that may be outstanding against such debtor showing the details as mentioned in the Section. 21. Section 26 of the Act prescribes the procedure of Courts in suits regarding loans, which reads ad infra:- 26. 21. Section 26 of the Act prescribes the procedure of Courts in suits regarding loans, which reads ad infra:- 26. Procedure of court in suits regarding loans.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in any suit to which this Act applies- (a) a court shall, before deciding the claim on merits, frame and decide the issue whether the money- lender has complied with the provisions of section 22 and section 23; (b) if the court finds that the provisions of section 22 and section 23 have not been complied with by the money-lender in respect of the whole or any part of the claim, it shall dismiss- (i) the whole suit with costs where such contravention has been in respect of the entire claim in the suit; or (ii) so much of the claim with costs proportionate thereto in respect of which the said provisions have not been complied with by the money-lender. Explanation.- A money-lender who has given the receipt or furnished a statement of accounts or a pass book in the prescribed form and manner, shall be held to have complied with the provisions of section 22 or section 23, as the case may be, in spite of any errors and omissions, if the court finds that such errors and omissions, are not material or not made fraudulently. 22. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence of the parties in the light of above quoted provisions of the Act, it reveals that the defendant is a trader and he took loan from the plaintiff as partner of his firm M/s. Awantika, therefore provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 do not apply in this case. 23. Now, we consider the objection of the defendant that Gopal Ratan Kothari is necessary party in the suit, thus the suit suffers from mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiff has filed the suit on basis of the receipt Ex-1 and it is not in dispute that Ex-1 is not signed by Gopal Ratan Kothari. From the discussions made above, it is proved that loan was taken by the defendant Jai Kumar Somani from the plaintiff. In these circumstances, said Gopal Ratan Kothari is not a necessary party by any stretch of imagination and the suit can be decided effectively and completely in absence of said Gopal Ratan Kothari. 24. From the discussions made above, it is proved that loan was taken by the defendant Jai Kumar Somani from the plaintiff. In these circumstances, said Gopal Ratan Kothari is not a necessary party by any stretch of imagination and the suit can be decided effectively and completely in absence of said Gopal Ratan Kothari. 24. As discussed above, the plaintiff-respondent has successfully proved that on 02/05/1987, the defendant took loan of Rs. 10,000/- from him on interest @ Rs.1.20 per hundred per month and executed receipt Ex-1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is also proved that the defendant did not pay anything towards the amount of loan and interest thereon, despite demand, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with cost from the defendant-appellant alongwith interest till realization. The learned trial Court committed no error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, therefore the appeal preferred by the defendant fails and is liable to be dismissed with cost being devoid of merits. 25. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the defendant- appellant is dismissed with cost.