BABU LAL Vs. SINGHAL LAKHPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this second appeal is that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Regulation of Money Lending Act inasmuch as the signatures of the Plaintiff on the form No. 10 -were not dated, although Rule 19(2) requires that every page of the statement shall bear the dated signature of the money lender, as explained in Rule 17(2). The Explanation to Rule 17(2) is not relevant in the present case. The certified copy of form No. 10, Ext. 4, shows that the original of that form was signed by Lakhpat Rai, but there was no date below his signature. Rule 19(4) directs that the Registrar shall put his dated signature on every page of the statement and shall also put his official seal thereon. The Registrar's dated signatures do appear to have been made on the form No. 10, according to its certified copy (Ext. 4). The statement in form No. 10 is required to be submitted according to Rule 19(1) for complying with the requirements of Section 26(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976.

(2.) MR . Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the requirement of dated signature was mandatory and the Plaintiff not having dated his signatures on form No. 10, as required by Rule 19(2), the requirements of Section 26 of the Act were not fulfilled, inasmuch as Sub -section (1) of that section says that "Every money lender...shall submit to the Registrar, a statement in the prescribed form...." It is true that the requirement of dating the signatures is a necessary requirement and the statement has to be submitted in the prescribed form. The question is about effect of not dating the signatures. In this context, the learned Counsel relied upon the rule of law declared by the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare : AIR 1975 SC 915, to the effect that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The present case is distinguishable and that rule is not applicable to the present situation inasmuch as Section 26 of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act does not confer any power on a money lender. It only regulates his right to sue on a debt due to him. In such a situation, it is the substance of the matter which has to be seen and not merely the form. The statement had been submitted in form No. 10, as prescribed by the rules. The only defect was that the Plaintiff could have got the defect removed, but the Registrar did not do so. Instead he granted a certificate to the Plaintiff. It cannot be said that the requirements of Section 26 were not substantially complied with. I say so also because there can be case where a money lender is illiterate and instead of signing the form merely thumb marks it and could not date it because he does not know how to do that. Although such a situation is not likely to arise frequently, nevertheless the fact remains that the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 does not provide that every money lender before he can sue upon a debt, must himself be literate and also know how to sign and date his signatures.

(3.) NO other point was pressed before me.