Judgment : 1. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1997 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Case No.15/96, whereby, the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railmagra (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Trial Court’) dated 18.08.1993 in Case No.1/1889 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed by the learned First Appellate Court for an amount of Rs.2,144/-. 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.2,144/- on 05.09.1988, wherein, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in the business of silver items and had taken an amount of Rs.1,885/- as loan from the plaintiff qua which an entry was made in the cash book ‘bahi’ of the plaintiff on 11.09.1985. A certain amount of loan was paid back by the defendant which was also entered in the cash book ‘bahi’. Out of total loan amount of Rs.2,080/-, an amount of Rs.500/- paid by the defendant had been adjusted and there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,580/- as principal, which had not been paid inspite of the repeated request. On the said amount, according to the agreement, plaintiff claimed an interest @ Rs.1 per Rs.100/- per year which comes out to be Rs.544/- and thus, the suit was filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,144/- 3. The defendant filed the reply denying the averments of the plaint and further stated that the plaintiff is a money-lender having no licence. After settlement, an amount of Rs.1,885/- was balance which has been repaid by the defendant and all the entries were entered in the account books of the defendant. The suit is time barred. 4. In additional plea, defendant further contended that the plaintiff is a money-lender and in absence of licence, the suit is not maintainable. 5. After settlement, an amount of Rs.1,885/- was balance which has been repaid by the defendant and all the entries were entered in the account books of the defendant. The suit is time barred. 4. In additional plea, defendant further contended that the plaintiff is a money-lender and in absence of licence, the suit is not maintainable. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : ^^1- vk;k izfroknh us oknh ds i{k esa 2042 dk Hkknok cnh X;kjl dks 1885@& dk bdjkj fu"ikfnr fd;k \ -------oknh 2- vk;k bl ds i'pkr QnZu QnZu dqy 195@& oknh ls izfroknh us vkSj izkIr fd;s \ ------oknh 3- vk;k izfroknh us dqy 2080@& isVs 500@& :i;k dh vnk;xh oknh dks dh ,oa 'ks"k :i;k 1580@& oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ------oknh 4- vk;k oknh lkgwdkjh lwn 1 :i;k izfrekg izfr lSDMk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ -------oknh 5- vk;k oknh euh ysf.Mx dk O;olk; djrk gS ,oa 22&23 /kkjk euh ysf.Max dh ikyuk ugha dh ftlls okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ -------oknh 6- nknjlh D;k gksxh \^^ 6. The learned Trial Court decided Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No.5 was decided against the plaintiff and on the basis of the finding of Issue No.5, the suit was dismissed. 7. The plaintiff preferred the first appeal and the learned First Appellate Court decided the Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.4 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue no.5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and by reversing the finding of Issue No.5, the learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.2,144/-. 8. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant, in which the following substantial questions of law were framed on 08.08.1997, which are reproduced as under : “(i) WHETHER learned trial court had correctly dismissed the suit for recovery of money due to non-compliance of the provisions of Sec.22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lending Act, 1963 and learned lower appellate court has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court ? (ii) WHETHER learned first appellate court has committed substantial error of law in deciding issue No.5 against the appellant. (iii) WHETHER learned first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court without meeting cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned trial court, 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.2,144/-. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.2,144/-, 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.