FATEH CHAND AGARWAL Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant has assailed the impugned order being No. 52 dated 29.08.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 12 of 2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dismissal of the suit on the ground of non- maintainability of the same as the O.P./plaintiff has no money lending licence as required under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940.

(2.) Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, while frankly submitted that the learned Court below was quite justified in dismissing the application since for failure to produce money lending licence will not entail dismissal of the suit, contended that as the receipt for renewal of the money lending licence was not filed in the learned Court below, it was not a part of the record and as such the leaned Court below should not have taken into account of the same. Mr. Dutta, relying upon the cases of Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, reported in 2002(1) SCC 90 (para 14) and R. Kapilnath v. Krishna, reported in 2003 (1) SCC 444 (para 5) further contended that as a money lender has certain obligations as embodied in Sections 25 & 27 of the said Act, he must continue to hold such licence, and though his client did not pray for stay of the suit, it was the bounden duty of the learned Court below to stay the suit in view of the specific provision of Section 13 of the Act.

(3.) There is no embargo to file a suit by unlicensed money-lender but embargo has been put in the statute against trial of the suit and passing decree without effective licence being produced. The trial Court can proceed and decree may be passed once the licence is shown to the Court or on imposing penalty, as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swaika Vanaspati Products Ltd. v. Canbank Financial Services Ltd., reported in 2000 (2) CLJ 185.