K LAKSHMIPATHY Vs. CHANNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates. This is a revision directed against a judgment of the Court of Small Causes in a recovery suit. The plaintiff who is the respondent before me is a money-lender and he had advanced to the present petitioner who was the original defendant a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 31-5-1986. It is unnecessary for me to deal with the controversy relating to whether the loan was repaid or not because the defendant contended that he had given certain post dated cheques from time to time to the plaintiff and that these have been encashed by him whereas the plaintiff denied these apart from one for which the learned Judge has given credit. There is a clear finding against the defendant to the effect that no other amount of the loan was repaid. The suit was therefore decreed for Rs. 8,113/- with costs, interest, etc.

(2.) The petitioner's learned Advocate has advanced certain submissions which essentially boil down to only one aspect namely that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge to the effect that the amounts were not repaid are legally untenable. Though the learned Advocate has made his submissions, I have pointed out to him that this would constitute reappreciation of the material on facts, that this is a civil revision petition and not a second appeal and that consequently, such a procedure is not permissible. His challenge must necessarily be restricted to a point of law. The last submission canvassed was that it was obligatory under the law for the plaintiff money-lender to satisfy the Court that he had possessed a valid money-lending licence both on the date of filing the suit and on the date of transaction namely for the year, 1986. This point had arisen in the course of the proceedings and the learned trial Judge has passed a very peculiar order whereunder he has decreed the suit. He has however directed the plaintiff to produce the licences in question failing which the decree was not to be drawn up and the suit was to be treated as having been dismissed. The submission canvassed was. that this procedure is not only irregular but that it has no legal sanction and that this decree must go. Respondent's learned Advocate has submitted that the objection is highly technical and that this is devoid of substance for two reasons. He makes a statement that the plaintiff was in a practical difficulty in producing the licences in this suit because they had been tendered in evidence in some other proceedings in the same Court. He points out however that the plaintiff was very much in possession of these licences, that they were produced in the office of the Court and that the decree was drawn up. He therefore submits that there is due compliance of the requirement of the section and he submits that the objection now canvassed is devoid of substance. In addition to this, the learned Advocate has informed me that this Court had not stayed the operation of the decree and that therefore the plaintiff has recovered the amount by attaching the salary of the defendant. He therefore, contends that the decree having been satisfied, nothing now survives in this proceeding.

(3.) This Court had admitted the revision proceeding and even if the decree has been executed, if the petitioner were to succeed, that procedure will have to be reversed. The short question is as to whether the decree is liable to be set aside on the ground that the licence for the years in question was not produced prior to the passing of the decree.