LALTA PRASAD Vs. 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in question was filed on 27th July. 1976. The Act was enforced with effect from 1st September, 1976. Section 3(6) of the Act defines 'money -lender' to mean a person who carries on the business of money -lending. 'Business of money -lending' has been defined in Section 3(2) to mean the business of advancing loans, whether or not in connection with or in addition to any other business. Section 7 requires that any person carrying on the business of money -lending on the date of commencement of this Act wishing to carry on such business after such commencement or any person wishing to commence such business after the said date may apply to the Registrar for registration. Section 10 then says that no person shall carry on the business of money lending, unless he holds a valid certificate of registration. All these provisions clearly indicate that the Act was intended to apply to those persons who intended to carry on the business of money lending even after the enforcement of the Act. They may be the persons who were carrying on such business from before or persons who want to start such business after the Act has already been enforced. Section 18 creates a bar on suits by money lender. As already stated, 'moneylender' has been defined to mean a person who carries on the business of money -lending, that is, a person who carries on such business even after the commencement of the Act. A person who has stopped the business of money -lending before the commencement of the Act cannot apply for registration under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the bar created by Section 18 of the Act cannot apply to a suit by an ex -money -lender, that is, a person, who was a money -lender prior to the commencement of the Act, but has ceased to be so before such commencement.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent referred to the provisions of Section 26(1) and (4) of the Act in support of the contention that the Act will apply even to persons who are not carrying on the business in presenti after the commencement of the Act. Subsection (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that every money -lender carrying on the business of money -lending from before the commencement of this Act shall submit to the Registrar, a statement in the prescribed form......Patently, this provision cannot apply to a former money lender who has stopped such business prior to the commencement of the Act. Sub -section (4) of Section 26 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, decree or order or any other Jaw for the time being in force, no money -lender shall be entitled to claim any amount from a debtor in respect of any loan advanced before the commencement of this Act, unless the name of such debtor and the amount due from him has been specified in the statement referred to in sub -section (1).

(3.) IN the present case, the learned lower court had held that the plaintiff was not a money -lender. It held that the plaintiff was not carrying on money lending business since 1975. These are findings of fact and the next question that arises is whether the learned Additional District Judge, in exercise of powers of revision under Section 115, C.P.C., was justified in reversing this finding of fact.