G H CHENGA LARAYAPPA Vs. G CHENGA FARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE plaintiff is the appellant, This is again one of the unfortunate way of disposing of cases by the subordinate courts despite non-filing written statement on behalf of the defendant.

(2.) THE facts are simple. The suit was filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff. The defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff examined himself and marked documents. If really the trial court has got any doubt regarding the possession of money lender's licence as required under a particular Money Lender act, it should have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the licence, especially when the plaintiff asserted that he had a licence. Without giving an opportunity and in a very hurried and hapazard fashion, the trial court has chosen to dismiss the suit.

(3.) THE less said about the appellate court is better. Before confirming the decree of the dismissal of the suit by the trial court, the appellate court did not even permit the appellant to file the licence which he claims to be in possession on the date of transaction in question. At least the appellate courts ought to have allowed him to produce such licence and then if the licence is not in the order, the suit could be dismissed. But, this procedure has not been followed by the appellate court.