RAM JIWAN Vs. SRI NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the Small Causes Court on the basis of a pronote.

(2.) THE only point for decision is whether the suit could continue and be decreed in the face of the provisions of Section 26 (4) and the proviso to Section 18 of the U. P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976. THE trial court has given a finding that the plaintiff is not a money lender within the meaning of this Act. This finding is obviously perverse and contrary to law inasmuch as P. W. 2 Mahadeo, who was a witness of the receipt executed at the time of the pronote, himself admitted that the plaintiff did carry on money lending business and had advanced loans not only to the defendant but also to atleast two others named by him including himself. This witness was not even re-examined by the plaintiff. His statement has not been disbelieved, but the learned Small Causes Court has said that it did not follow from this admission that the plaintiff was a "professional money lender". THE adjective "professional" is nowhere to be found in the Act and it is not understood what the learned court seems to imply by the use of this expression. THE expression "money-lender" is defined in the Act and according to that definition the plaintiff cannot but be held to be a money lender.