JUDGMENT M Venkata Ramana, J. - This second appeal is presented against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru dated 19.02.2021. By this decree and judgment, the decree and judgment in O.S.No.251 of 2016 dated 03.01.2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru were confirmed. 2. Having regard to the nature of this matter, upon hearing Sri Ch.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, it is felt desirable to dispose of at the stage of admission itself, finding that it is lacking substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 CPC, to determine. 3. The question involved in this matter is in respect of granting or rather permitting interest during currency of the transaction covered by the suit promissory note dated 29.07.1987. 4. The case of the appellant is that the respondent and his father borrowed Rs.25,000/- on 29.07.1987 for the purpose of their business agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. compounded annually and made part payments, time to time. Further case of the appellant is that in spite of repeated demands and issuance of a legal notice dated 07.06.2016, since the respondent did not repay the amount due, he was constrained to lay the suit for recovery of Rs.5,21,531/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. 5. The defence set up by the respondent at the trial was that the appellant is a benami of one Sri Vegunta Radha Krishna Murthty and his son Sri Vegunta Prasad and that there were money transactions between these parties since the year 1988 including during the lifetime of his father Sri China Kannayya. Further defence of the respondent was that at the instance of the creditors, he was made to make payment endorsements upon paying interest from time to time without any default, though these payments were not to the extent stated by the appellant. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned trial Judge settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for or not? 2. Whether the suit pronote and part payment endorsements are true and valid and binding on the defendant or not? 3. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not? 4. Basing on the pleadings, the learned trial Judge settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for or not? 2. Whether the suit pronote and part payment endorsements are true and valid and binding on the defendant or not? 3. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not? 4. To what relief? 7. The parties went to trial, where the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and an attestor to the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 as P.W.2, while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A14. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. 8. The learned trial Judge, on the material and evidence, held that the suit promissory note and the payment endorsements-Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 being true and correct. However, in respect of rate of interest claimed, the learned trial Judge held that the same is usurious and calculating the rate of interest with yearly rests on the principal sum adjudged since the year 1987 is unconscionable. Thus, reopening the transaction relating to this contract covered by Ex.A1, the learned trial Judge reduced the same to 12% p.a. being simple interest on Rs.25,000/- from the date the suit promissory note viz., 29.07.1987 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. on Rs.25,000/- from the date of the decree till realization. In the appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court for the same reasons, rejecting the contention of the appellant. 9. In these circumstances, the appellant choose to present this second appeal. The entire question is confined only in respect of reopening the transaction covered by Ex.A1 suit promissory note and scalling down the rate of interest. Both the Courts below concurrently held in this respect recording consistent findings against the appellant. 10. Sri Ch.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the circumstances relating to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 should be taken into consideration and when the borrowers agreed to the transaction abiding to its terms when payments were made from time to time, reopening it by the trial Court and confirming such finding of the trial Court by the learned appellate Judge are perverse and without sanction of law. Contending that Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act is not applicable since the transaction is purely commercial in nature and that it is nobody's case that that the respondent and his father being agriculturists, scalling down the rate of interest interfering with the contract under Ex.A1 is uncalled for and that, it is the substantial question of law requiring consideration of this Court. 11. Now, it has to be determined whether in view of the consistent findings recorded by both the Courts below, is it necessary to consider the question of scalling down the interest in the second appeal, treating as substantial question of law? 12. A sum of Rs.25,000/- borrowed on 29.07.1987 ripened to Rs.5,21,531/- by the date of the suit. The reason is effect of interest on the principal sum of Rs.25,000/- borrowed under Ex.A1 suit promissory note by the respondent and his father who were then running a cinema theatre at Eluru, for their business purpose, at yearly rests. The judgment of the trial Court recorded that interest at 12% p.a. was calculated on the adjudged sum at yearly rests that had lead to swelling up the amount due by the date of the suit to the above extent. Upon Ex.A1, even after the death of Sri China Kannayya-father of the respondent on 12.04.2007, the respondent apparently made certain payments and all the part payments stated to be towards interest are found in Ex.A2 to Ex.A11. 13. Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act permits reopening a transaction in certain circumstances stated therein. It is desirable to extract Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act hereunder. 3. 13. Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act permits reopening a transaction in certain circumstances stated therein. It is desirable to extract Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act hereunder. 3. Re-opening of transactions.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1855 (28 of 1855), where, in any suit to which this Act applies, whether heard ex parte or otherwise, the Court has reason to believe, - (a) that the interest is excessive; and (b) that the transaction was, as between the parties thereto, substantially unfair, the Court may exercise all or any of the following powers, namely, may,- (i) re-open the transaction, take an account between the parties, and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any excessive interest; (ii) notwithstanding any agreement, purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation, re-open any account already taken between them and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any excessive interest, and if anything has been paid or allowed in account in respect of such liability, order the creditor to repay any sum which it considers to be repayable in respect thereof; (iii) set aside either wholly or in part or revise or alter any security given or agreement made in respect of any loan, and if the creditor has parted with the security, order him to indemnify the debtor in such manner and to such extent as it may deem just: Provided that, in the exercise of these powers, the Court shall not- (i) re-open any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation which has been entered into by the parties or any persons from whom they claim at a date more than twelve years from the date of the transaction; (ii) do anything which affects any decree of a Court. Explanation.-In the case of a suit brought on a series of transactions the expression "the transaction" means, for the purposes of proviso (i), the first of such transactions. (2) (a) In this section "excessive" means in excess of that which the Court deems to be reasonable having regard to the risk incurred as it appeared, or must be taken to have appeared, to the creditor at the date of the loan. (2) (a) In this section "excessive" means in excess of that which the Court deems to be reasonable having regard to the risk incurred as it appeared, or must be taken to have appeared, to the creditor at the date of the loan. (b) In considering whether interest is excessive under this section, the Court shall take into account any amounts charged or paid, whether in money or in kind, for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonuses, premia, renewals or any other charges, and if compound interest is charged, the periods at which it is calculated, and the total advantage which may reasonably be taken to have been expected from the transaction. (c) In considering the question of risk, the Court shall take into account the presence or absence of security and the value thereof, the financial condition of the debtor and the result of any previous transactions of the debtor, by way of loan, so far as the same were known, or must be taken to have been known, to the creditor. (d) In considering whether a transaction was substantially unfair, the Court shall take into account all circumstances materially affecting the relations of the parties at the time of the loan or tending to show that the transaction was unfair, including the necessities or supposed necessities of the debtor at the time of the loan so far as the same were known, or must be taken to have been known, to the creditor. Explanation.-Interest may of itself be sufficient evidence that the transaction was substantially unfair. (3) This section shall apply to any suit, whatever its form may be, if such suit is substantially one for the recovery of a loan or for the enforcement of any agreement or security in respect of a loan 2 [or for the redemption of any such security]. (4) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of any transferee for value who satisfies the Court that the transfer to him was bona fide, and that he had at the time of such transfer no notice of any fact which would have entitled the debtor as against the lender to relief under this section. For the purposes of this sub-section, the word "notice" shall have the same meaning as is ascribed to it in section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). For the purposes of this sub-section, the word "notice" shall have the same meaning as is ascribed to it in section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the existing powers or jurisdiction of any Court. 14. This section casts a burden on the Court to reopen the transaction when it has reason to believe that the interest is excessive, substantially unfair and in this process if the Court has to consider the risk incurred as it appeared to the creditor on the date of the loan. The Court is also under obligation to understand the risk of the creditor in this transaction. If there is any security available as well as its value, financial condition of the debtor and other circumstances, as can be culled out from the effect of this Section are other factors, the Court has to be look into. It has also explained when a transaction is substantially unfair and the responsibility of the Court thereon in certain given circumstances narrated therein. 15. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction and power of the Court to consider and reopen a contract of this nature in the circumstances when Section 3(1) (a) & (b) are applicable. 16. Even a casual look at the claim of the appellant against the respondents basing on the suit promissory note, attracted these provisions of the Usurious Loans Act. 17. The question of risk for the appellant in this process did not appear apparently, since the appellant was satisfied in lending of money knowing full well the background of the respondent and his father. Therefore, reliance placed on behalf of the appellant in K.Apparao vs. V.L.Varadaraj and others, (1981) AIR Madras 94 cannot assist his contention. 18. Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & others, (2007) 3 SCC 545 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also relied on for the appellant in this context. This decision, considered the fact situation when the amount was lent about 10 years prior to the suit and considering that interest was not paid by the borrower, in the circumstances and in the given fact situation, observations were recorded. Syndicate Bank, Kurichedu, Prakasam District vs. Induri Guravareddy and others, (1998) 1 APLJ 50 is not applicable at all to this matter. Syndicate Bank, Kurichedu, Prakasam District vs. Induri Guravareddy and others, (1998) 1 APLJ 50 is not applicable at all to this matter. The learned trial Judge applied the ratio in Yogendranath Raj (died) & others vs. State Bank of India, (1987) 1 ALT 316 (DB) in which a division bench of then High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered the effect of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act along with Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act. Basing on this ruling, the learned trial Judge observed that it is an obligation for the Court to reopen a transaction in the circumstances when Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act is applicable. 19. The learned appellate Judge also followed this ruling and the tenor of reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge. 20. In the above circumstances, when there are clear findings recorded by both the Courts below consistently having regard to the nature of the transaction involved in this matter, which is strikingly unreasonable, unfair and unconscionable, it is rather unnecessary for this Court to consider this question once again. It is predominantly based on the fact and when discretion exercised by the courts below in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that there are no justifiable reasons to hold that there are such questions of law much less substantial in nature to attract application of Section 100 CPC. Therefore, the matter need not be determined at this stage. Therefore, the second appeal has to be dismissed at this stage. 21. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission finding that there are no substantial questions of law that arise for determination. Consequently, the decrees and judgments of both the courts below stand confirmed. No costs. 22. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.