RSA 468 of 2007. 27.3.2008 Present: Mr. Lalit K.Sharma, c ounsel for the appellant. Ms. Rita Goswami, counsel for the respondent. CMP(M) 753 of 2007. Heard. I am satisfied that the delay which has been occasioned in filing the appeal is bonafide and is neither willful nor deliberate. The application is allowed. Delay condoned. RSA 468 of 2007. This is the defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahar, Distt. Shimla, reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The appellant defendant had resisted the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was barred by the Himachal Pradesh Money Lenders Act as alleged. Thetrial Court decided in favour of the appellant on a speculative finding that the plaintiff was a money lender attracting the prohibition of Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976. The learned appellate Court, on -2- consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, held that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent-plaintiff was a money lender in terms of the Act as aforesaid. Rather, the entire effort of the appellant – defendant was not to pay money after having borrowed the same from the respondent plaintiff. The Court found as a fact that there was no material on record to establish the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was a money lender and as such not entitled to recovery money. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the findings of the learned appellate Court are wrong and perverse and that substantial questions of law arise when there has been a misappreciation of documents on record. The judgment of the learned first appellate Court cannot be faulted with. It has considered the entire matter in its true conspectus referring to each and every document and witness(es) on record. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. March 27, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.