GHANA NANDA Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was Plaintiff in a small causes suit. He filed the suit for recovery of loan alleging that the Defendant had executed a pronote and receipt in his favour in the year 1972. The suit was filed sometimes in the year 1975 and during the pendency of the suit, the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act) came into force. Under Section 7 of the, aforesaid Act, a certificate of registration was to be obtained by every moneylender and under the proviso of Sub-section (I) of Section 7, three months time was granted from commencement of that Act for applying for registration of the persons who were engaged in business of money-lending prior to the said Act. Section 26 also requires the money-lenders to get themselves registered and Sub-section (4) created a bar rn realization of the loan from the debtors in the absence of such registration. The proviso under Section 18 also permitted the moneylender to apply for registration under Section 7 within a period of three months from the date of such commencement. The suit came up for hearing before the Judge, Small Causes, in July, 1978. Prior to that the Petitioner-Plaintiff had obtained the registration in his favour on 2-6-1978 under Section 18 of the Act. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit, holding that as the Plaintiff had failed to obtain the registration in his favour under Section 26 of the original Act, his suit was liable to be dismissed. A revision was filed against the aforesaid order, which, also, was dismissed, by the IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr.

(2.) Both the courts below have relied upon Form-lu prepared under Rule 16 framed under the Act. As the loan of the Defendant was not entered in that form, the learned revisional court held that the judgment-debtor's loan was not covered by the certificate issued to him under Rule 16. Rule 16 requires that a copy of the necessary documents mentioned in that rule should be furnished to the judgment-debtor. It does not require the mention of judgment-debtor's debt in any other documents. Form-10, under the Rules, is a statement under Rule 19 and under Rule 16. Rule 19 refers to the statement submitted by the moneylender to the Registrar in respect of the debts loaned by him. That, however, does not mean that if a particular debt is not mentioned in the Form, may be for the reason that a litigation was already pending or otherwise, the debt will not be realisable or the money-lender will not be a money-lender in respect of such a debt. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited the attention of the court to the amendments made by the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1979, known as U.P. Registration of Money Lending (Amendment) Act, 1978. By this Act, Sections 7, 18 and 26 of the principal Act have been amended and the period for obtaining registration has been extended to three months after the commencement of the Amendment Act. The period for obtaining the registration had not expired in view of the fact that the Amendment Act was enforced on 6th January, 1979. The Petitioner had obtained registration earlier and even if the debt of the Respondent was not entered into the Form-10, that did not disentitle him from obtaining a decree on the basis of that loan. The judgment and order passed by both the courts below are based on a presumption that if a debt was not mentioned in Form-10 under Rule 16, no decree could be passed. There is no such prohibition in the entire Act and the only requirement of Sections 7, 18 and 26(4) was that the money-lender must be registered within the period prescribed, which has been extended by the Amending Act. The registration certificate issued to the Petitioner was quite lawful and vaild.

(3.) The judgments and orders passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the Judge, Small Causes / Civil Judge, Bulandshahr and the I Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr are quashed. The Civil Judge, Bulandshahr is-directed to re-register the Small Causes Suit No. 90 of 1976 to his original file and decide the same in accordance with law.