JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri G. Sushanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/appellant/defendant, on the question of admission. Perused the record. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2025 in A.S.No.14 of 2024 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Sathupalli (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2024 in O.S.No.115 of 2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a suit filed for recovery of money has been decreed and the same has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court in appeal. 3. The background facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and the office copy of legal notice issued to the appellant herein. The case of the respondent was that the appellant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- to be repaid with interest at 24% per annum, but failed to repay the borrowed amount. Thereafter, the appellant issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on SBH, Madhira Branch and then the same was submitted for realisation. The cheque was returned with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Therefore, a legal notice was issued for repayment of the money followed by filing of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which resulted in filing of charge sheet under C.C.No.272 of 2014. There was no hope of recovering the promissory note amount with interest and therefore, suit for recovery of money has been filed. 4. The appellant /defendant opposed the suit claim by denying the cause of action for filing the suit. The appellant claimed never to have borrowed the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be repaid with interest, never executed the promissory note, and that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Further, it is alleged that the respondent is doing money lending business without any license to do so. In the process of doing money lending business, the respondent is collecting empty signed promissory notes and blank signed cheques from the borrowers who have obtained loan from him. The respondent had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the respondent in the year 2010, but the same has been repaid. Though the loan amount was repaid, the respondent did not return the cheque and the same has been fabricated to file the suit. The respondent had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the respondent in the year 2010, but the same has been repaid. Though the loan amount was repaid, the respondent did not return the cheque and the same has been fabricated to file the suit. Further, a list of cases wherein the respondent filed for recovery of money are mentioned in the plaint. More particularly, complaint in C.C.Nos.270 of 2014, 271 of 2014 and 269 of 2014 have been listed to allege that the respondent is engaged in money lending business without registering under Money Lender Act. It is alleged that there are no bona fides or prima facie case and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon examining the case of both the respondent and the appellant, the Trial Court decreed the suit. The Trial Court observed that the appellant did not choose to examine any witness and did not lead evidence to show that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. There was no enmity between the parties in order to have any motive for forging the suit promissory note. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 promissory note, Ex.A2 legal notice and Ex.A3 acknowledgment card were found to be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof of the respondent whereas there was no evidence on behalf of the appellant to discharge his onus of proof. The witness PW2 deposed that the suit transaction took place in his presence and there was nothing contra elicited during cross examination to doubt the veracity of his evidence. There was no enmity or ill motive suggested to PWs 1 and 2 in their cross examination in order to attribute motive for fabricating the suit promissory note. The evidence of the respondent as PW1 and the witness to the promissory note as PW2 was corroborative and consistent in supporting the suit claim and therefore, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred the First Appeal vide A.S.No.14 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court. 6. The First Appellate Court also appreciated the evidence on record on behalf of the respondent through PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A3 and absence of any documents filed on behalf of the appellant to prove money lending transactions by the respondent. 6. The First Appellate Court also appreciated the evidence on record on behalf of the respondent through PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A3 and absence of any documents filed on behalf of the appellant to prove money lending transactions by the respondent. There was defence taken about a transaction of Rs.50,000/- between the parties wherein a blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note were handed over to the respondent. There is a defence taken that said Rs.50,000/- was repaid but the respondent failed to return the promissory note and the same was used for filing the present suit. In case, such misuse was done by the respondent, the appellant herein ought to have initiated criminal or civil proceedings against the appellant, but such is not the case. With respect to the respondent being a money lender without license, it is held that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent was engaged in money lending business. Also, though forgery and fabrication is alleged and there was liberty to lead evidence to prove the same, the appellant herein did not take steps to prove the same. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that there is no evidence on record to prove that the respondent is engaged in money lending business without license. As such, the appeal was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is preferred wherein the following substantial questions of law are raised: a) Whether the judgment and decree is maintainable without framing an issue about specific defense raised by the appellant/defendant in his written statement i.e., whether the respondent/plaintiff is running money lending business in the absence of a license under AP (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act? b) Whether the judgment and decree can be maintainable in the absence of a license under A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli? c) Whether, in the light of the admitted fact that respondent/plaintiff himself admitted in his cross examination stating that he is doing money lending business, the trial Court and lower appellate court misleading the evidence sustainable? d) Whether admitted facts in cross examination of PW1 need not to be proved by placing evidence? 7. c) Whether, in the light of the admitted fact that respondent/plaintiff himself admitted in his cross examination stating that he is doing money lending business, the trial Court and lower appellate court misleading the evidence sustainable? d) Whether admitted facts in cross examination of PW1 need not to be proved by placing evidence? 7. The above substantial questions of law do not qualify to be substantial questions of law for the simple reason that all the questions revolve around whether or not the respondent is doing money lending business and whether such an issue need to have been framed by the Trial Court and whether the Judgment and Decree are maintainable without a money lending licence in favour of the respondent and whether admission about lending money to some of the borrowers in his cross examination is sufficient to prove that the respondent is engaged in money lending business. 8. It is a point to be noted that the Trial Court addressed this issue and has held that lending money to colleagues does not qualify to be called as a money lending business which requires license. Further, it is held that the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that the respondent is engaged in money lending business. There is a finding to the effect that the respondent was lending money to acquaintances, but, there is no evidence to prove that the respondent is engaged in money lending business. No such issue was framed and it is held that there was no need to frame an issue to said effect. It is held that the issues that were framed were sufficient to adjudicate the controversy between the parties. Thus, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have addressed the issue of whether or not the respondent was engaged in money lending business sufficiently. 9. The learned counsel for appellant referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Venkatesh Shinde v. P. Rameshchand Bhandari and others , 2006 (4) ALD 569 , wherein, it is held that non-registration of a person as money lender, the suit by person for recovery of money liable to be dismissed, if such person does not hold license granted under Section 3 (2) of A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act. Said order was rendered in a Civil Revision Petition filed challenging the dismissal of interlocutory application filed for framing of issues. Said order was rendered in a Civil Revision Petition filed challenging the dismissal of interlocutory application filed for framing of issues. In case, the appellant herein was particular about framing of an issue about the respondent being a money lender without license, he ought to have filed an application before the Trial Court for framing such an issue after the issues were framed during trial. Having failed to insist upon the Trial Court to frame an issue about whether or not the respondent is a money lender without license, this issue cannot be agitated at Second Appeal stage. 10. A Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is maintainable only when there are substantial questions of law to be adjudicated. In the instant case, the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law. As already discussed, the questions of law that are raised are questions of fact about whether or not the respondent is a money lender and whether or not he is having registration under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act. Due to failure to raise substantial questions of law, there are no merits in the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.