Judgment : 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.20/91, whereby, the appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.02.1989 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Amet (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in Original Civil Suit No.12/87 has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant had been rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs.2,850/-. In original suit filed on 15.03.1979, the plaintiff stated that he had given a loan of Rs.2,100/- on 16.03.1976 with a condition of interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per month. A note was executed. As per the note, no amount of principal as well as the interest had been paid and according to the condition, interest amounting to Rs.750/- was outstanding and therefore claimed a total amount of Rs.2,850/- i.e. Rs.2,100/- as principal and Rs.750/- as interest was claimed. 3. The defendant in his reply denied the averments of plaint and contended that plaintiff has fabricated his signatures and a false and fabricated note has been created. The defendant also stated that against the loan, amounts have been repaid and there is no other outstanding amount left to be paid. Further, the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1963’) and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The pro-note has been written by one Parmanand and thus, there is no liability of Gopilal and hence, prayed that suit may be rejected. 4. Further, the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1963’) and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The pro-note has been written by one Parmanand and thus, there is no liability of Gopilal and hence, prayed that suit may be rejected. 4. Learned Trial Court framed the following six issues, which are reproduced as under: ^^1- vk;k izfroknh us oknh ds fglkc ds iqjkuk cdk;k ds :i;k 2100@& fnukad 16-3-76 dks Lohdkj djds ,d nLrkost oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k \ 2- vk;k oknh ,d :i;k lSadM+k izfrekg dh nj ls C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 3- vk;k nLrkost ijekuan dh vksj ls fy[kk gqvk gksus ls izfroknh xksih yky dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha jgrk gS \ 4- vk;k oknh euhysaMj gS o euhysUMhax yk;lsUl u gksus ls ,oa euh ysUMhax ,DV dh /kkjk 22 o 23 dh ikyuk oknh ds }kjk ugha djus ls nkok oknh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ 5- vk;k izfroknh ds fo'ks"k mRrj ds iSjk ua- 5 ds vuqlkj oknh dks 4175@& :i;k dh vnk;xh gks pqdh gS \ 6- vuqrks"k \^^ 5. The Learned Trial Court decided Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.3 was also decided in the manner that since Parmanand was found to be dead, therefore, the pro-note could not have been executed by him. Issue No.4 was decided against the defendant. Issue No.5 was decided against the defendant and under Issue No.6, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,100/- along with interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.03.1976 till filing of suit and thereafter interest on principal amount of Rs.2,100/-. 6. The defendant-respondent aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.1989 preferred a first appeal, which came to be decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.1995. 7. The learned First Appellate Court also decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was again decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, the finding of Issue No.4 was reversed by the learned First Appellate Court. Further, the finding of Issue No.5 was upheld. 7. The learned First Appellate Court also decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was again decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, the finding of Issue No.4 was reversed by the learned First Appellate Court. Further, the finding of Issue No.5 was upheld. Lastly, the finding on Issue No.6 was reversed on account of the non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act of 1963 and the suit was dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1995, the plaintiff-appellant preferred the second appeal, in which following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 28.02.1996, which are reproduced as under : “1. WHETHER burden of proof is a question of law and it can be agitated in the Second Appeal? 2. WHETHER burden of proving compliance of Sections 22 and 23 of the Money Lenders Act lies on the shoulders of the plaintiff or defendant. If so its effect?” 9. Before adverting to answer the substantial questions of law, this Court has to see whether the present second appeal under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as it existed on the date of admission of appeal is maintainable or not. 10. For ready reference, Section 102 , CPC as it existed on 08.08.1997 is reproduced as under : “102. No second appeal in certain suits – No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject- matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees.” 11. The present suit is for recovery of money amounting to Rs.2,850/-. The suit is cognizable by a Court of small causes and is not barred under the Second Schedule of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Since the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, which is having valuation of less than Rs.3,000/-, a second appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 102 , CPC. 12. This Court finds support from the judgments rendered by the different High Courts, which are quoted as under : In a case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. 12. This Court finds support from the judgments rendered by the different High Courts, which are quoted as under : In a case titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Sant Singh ; AIR 2008 Chh 44, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, while dealing with similar issue held as under : “ 11. In Shah Vardhilal Amritlal v. Bhuralal MANU/GJ/0043/1987: AIR 1987 Guj 50 . A.M. Ahmadi as His Lordship then was held as follows (para 4): Section 102 (as it is now) reproduced earlier clearly provides that no Second Appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter thereof does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-. The suit must, therefore, be of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, the value or subject matter whereof does not exceed Rs. 3,000/ to attract the provision of Section 102 of the Code. It is the nature of the suit that is decisive, no matter whether it is tried by the Court having jurisdiction as a regular suit. The key words are any suit of the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes which clearly mean that the suit must be one of which the Court of Small Causes could take cognizance; it does not matter that it ultimately came to be tried as a regular suit and not in accordance with the procedure laid down for the disposal of such Small Cause Suits. Merely because the suit was tried in the ordinary manner as a regular suit, it will not cease to be a suit of the nature cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes, for what is important is the nature of the suit and not the procedure employed for the disposal thereof. (See Digambar Mandi v. Valubai MANU/MH/0052/1961 : AIR 1961 Bom 221 . There is no dispute before me that the suit in question being a money suit for a sum not exceeding Rs. 3,000/- would be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. 12. In this view of the matter, merely by reason of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court having been curtailed the nature of suit as one triable by a Small Cause Court, does not change. It is here that the prohibition under Section 102 of the CPC comes into play. 12. In this view of the matter, merely by reason of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court having been curtailed the nature of suit as one triable by a Small Cause Court, does not change. It is here that the prohibition under Section 102 of the CPC comes into play. Applying the above mentioned principles, the second appeal does not lie. 13. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” In another case titled as Lalji Chaturvedi Shastri Vs. Union of India and Ors.; 1996 SC Allah (760), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, has held as under : “ 9. Section 102 , Code of Civil Procedure provides that no second appeal would like in any suit or the nature cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 2,000. This amount "Rs. 3,000" was substituted for the amount Rs. 1,000 In the year 1967. The suit having been filed prior to 1975. The limit would be Rs. 1,000 only. On this point the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the case law reported In MANU/MH/0055/1970 : AIR 1970 Bom 307 . Section 102 . Code of Civil Procedure does not say that for the application of this Section, the suit should be cognizable by the Courts of small causes as no second appeal lies against decrees of small causes Court. It only speaks of suit of the nature cognizable by the Courts of small causes. This suggests that this Section covers such suits which as regards their subject-matter would lie within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes but which are outside the Jurisdiction by reason of the amount claimed being beyond the pecuniary limit of the small causes jurisdiction. The test for finding out whether the particular suit is or is not of the nature cognizable by the Courts of small causes, Is to see whether it Is excepted under the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 and what Is to be considered under this Section is whether the suit is of the nature cognizable by Court of small causes and not whether It was or could have been so taken cognizance of by the Courts of small causes .” In another judgment rendered in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Singh ; 1992 WLN (UC) 575, by the coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court has found that the suit below Rs.3,000/- is not maintainable in view of bar under Section 102 , CPC. The relevant para no.3 of the judgment is reproduced as under : “ 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment passed by the learned lower Court. The State has filed this second appeal against the judgment dated May 16,1992, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit for an amount of Rs. 2472/- and Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature to be heard by the small causes court when the amount of the suit or the valuation of the subject- matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 3000/-. Admittedly, the valuation of the present suit is less than Rs. 3000/- and, therefore, in view of the bar, created by Section 102 C.P.C., the second appeal is not maintainable.” 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncement, it is ample clear that a second appeal in a suit, which is cognizable by a Court of small causes having subject matter of suit less than Rs.3,000/- is not maintainable. 14. Since the subject matter of the present suit is Rs.2,850/-, the present second appeal is not maintainable in view of bar under Section 102 , CPC. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.