BHURSINGH POONAMCHAND MALWAI Vs. SHYAMSUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the opinion in F.A. No.19/79. On an order of reference by Hon'ble A.G. Qureshi, J., this matter has come up for opinion on the questions referred to as under :-

(2.) The material facts of the case have been referred in paras 1 to 3 of the Order, which are not reproduced to burden this opinion.

(3.) The controversy, thus arose that after the repeal of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Moneylenders Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No.62 of 1950-Samvat 2007) (for short, "the M. B. Act") and on enforcement of the M. P. Moneylenders Act, 1934 (for short, "the M. P. Act of 1934") in Madhya Bharat region by the M. P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958, 1-1-59, the rules framed under the M. P. Act of 1934 were not extended to the Madhya Bharat area and the Rules framed under the M. B. Act continued to apply. In M/s. Rajaram Champalal Saraf v. M/s. Mahendra Kumar Moolchand Sanawad (First Appeal No.59 of 1976 decided on 16-3-82 at Indore Bench), the learned single Judge of this Court held that there being nothing on record to indicate that no dates and areas have been prescribed by the Government, as contemplated in S.3(l)(b) of the Act of 1934 for the Madhya Bharat region, the provisions of S.3 of the said Act are not attracted to a moneylender, who carries on his business in the district of West Nimar, Tehsil Sanawad, where the plaintiffs carry on their business and at Maheshwar, where the defendants are carrying on their business. This judgment was followed by another decision of the learned single Judge in Geetabai Goyal v. Surendra Kumar (First Appeal No.9 of 1978, decided on 30-9-86 at Indore Bench, reported at page No.115 as Note No.87 in (1987) 1 MPWN).