MOTIRAM YESHWANT GAIKWAD Vs. AKKATAI UTTAM TRIMUKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 28-4-1994 by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,500. 00. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in S. 96 (4) of Code of Civil Procedure which debars filing of appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court involving the claim or valuation below Rs. 10,000. 00, the petitioner has no remedy, other than the revision application.

(3.) THE records disclose that suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of money of Rs. 1,500. 00 against the respondent has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in money lending business but does not possess necessary licence for such business and, therefore, no suit for recovery of money at the instance of the petitioner is maintainable in terms of the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The said decision has been delivered after arriving at the finding that the petitioner has proved that the respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,500. 00 on 9-6-1991 from the Petitioner but the evidence on record corroborates the defence of the respondent as regards the money lending business by the petitioner and further that there is admission by the petitioner that he had filed about eight suits for recovery of money borrowed from him and some of the suits were decreed and some others had been dismissed, yet few are pending. However, the petitioner has not obtained any licence under the said Act for such business and as per S. 10 of the said Act, without such licence, no suit for recovery of money by a person engaged in such business is maintainable. The trial Court has also held that the transaction in question is not an isolated one as sought to be contended by the petitioner.