RSA 200/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The defendants in Money Suit No.71/2006 has filed this appeal challenging the ju dgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Kam rup at Guwahati in Money Appeal No.8/2010 dismissing the said appeal and affirmi ng the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Jud ge, No.2, Kamrup in Money Suit No.71/2006, whereby and whereunder the suit of th e plaintiff/respondent has been decreed. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the said suit for realization of a sum of Rs .4,51,200/- from the defendants/appellants contending inter-alia that on being a pproached, the plaintiff extended the financial assistance to the defendants to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet certain urgent necessities with the promise to repay the same with interest. According to the plaintiff, after payment of cer tain amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as on 1st March, 2003, which includes in terest, was found to be due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, whic h the defendant has acknowledged on 1st April, 2003. The further case of the pl aintiff is that the said amount having not been paid, he has instituted the suit . The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement contending int er-alia that the suit is hit by Section 7(D) of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 193 4. The defendants, however, have admitted obtaining the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- a nd agreed to repay the same with interest. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Court below framed the following issu es for consideration and decision:- 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender within the meaning of Assam Money Len ders Act, 1934? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 6 To what other relief/reliefs, the parties are entitled? Learned trial Court de cided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff? While the plaintiff examined one witnesses, namely the plaintiff’s paternal uncl e, the defendants did not, however, examined any witness. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved Money Appeal No.8/2010 was filed by the defendants, which has also been dismissed. Hence the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants. It has been contended by Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff himself being not examined as witness and instead, his paternal uncle being examined, who has no personal knowledge, his evidence ought not to have be en taken into consideration for the purpose of decreeing the suit of the plainti ff. The learned counsel submits that since there is no evidence on record, apar t from the evidence of the said witness, the learned Court below ought not to ha ve passed the decree. It appears from the pleadings in the written statement that the defendants have admitted taking loan with interest payable thereon and with the condition of rep ayment. The balance confirmation was also not denied. PW-1, who is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff, has examined himself as witness. Even if he did not ha ve personal knowledge about the transaction being carried out with the plaintiff , the defendants having admitted obtaining the loan with interest and the condit ion of repayment, the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find involvement of any substantial question of l aw and hence the appeal stands dismissed.