BHASKARRAO JAGESHWARRAO BUTY Vs. SARU JADHAORAO TUMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications raise a common question of fact and law, and are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff, petitioner before me is a money-lender having a valid licence issued to him under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. It was his case that he advanced a loan in the form of foodgrains namely, paddy to the defendant. That he complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, namely, sending statements, maintaining accounts and such other formalities. The grain was to be returned with interest which was agreed. Since, however, the defendant did not repay the loan of grain, either in the form of grain or in cash, the plaintiff brought this suit.

(3.) The defendant apart from denying the claim of the plaintiff, raised a contention that the claim was not enforceable by reason of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966. The trial Judge accepted the contention and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is against this judgment and decree that the present revision applications are filed.