NATH MALLIK Vs. ACHUTANANDA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the Defendant against an order of the learned second Addl. Sub Judge of Cuttack, decreeing the Plaintiff 's suit. The facts as found by the court of appeal below are not challenged in this Court. The only point raised is that the Plaintiff not having complied with the mandatory provisions of Rules 11 and 12 of the Orissa Money Lenders Rules, his suit should be dismissed.

(2.) IN the case reported in Bahadur Thakur v. Bata Sahu, 23 C.L.T. 468, Rao, J. held that the Plaintiff 's suit ought to be dismissed for non compliance with rules 11 and 12; but in a subsequent decision reported in Raghunath Prusti v. Sauddin Khan, 24. C.L.T. 28, held that if the Plaintiff does not comply with the provisions of Rules 11 and 12, an opportunity should be given to the Plaintiff and the court should call for these particulars, if not given in the plaint. Subsequently, however, an identical question came up to be decided by Mohapatra, J. in a case reported in, 26 C.L.T. 264 Mahendra Mohanty v. Khira Bewa, wherein it was held that the provisions of Rules 11 and 12 being mandatory, in cases of non -compliance, the Plaintiff suit must be dismissed. Rlying on this decision of Mohapatra, J. I have held in an unreported decision of this Court (C.R. No. 17 of 1959, disposed of on 22 -4 -60) that it the Plaintiff does not comply with the Rules 11 and 12 of the Orissa Money Lenders Rules, the suit ought to be dismissed. Mr. Rao, relies upon my decision of in the above case. These rules were meant for the relief of the debtors and the whole Money Lenders Act was designed to give certain relief to the debtors. True it is that these rules are technical rules, but the rules being of a mandatory nature, they must be complied with by a suitor. The lower appellate court has taken the view that the rules have been substantially complied with when the Plaintiff has supplied the registration number and the maximum capital involved in his money -lending business while answering to omit to certain interrogatories put by the Defendant. Even if that is accepted, that would not amount to full compliance with the Rules. Because Rule (sic) in addition to the date and number of registration and the maximum capital in respect of which he holds certificate, enjoins upon the Plaintiff to file a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. Copy of the account as referred to in Clause (iii) of Rule 11 has admittedly not been furnished. It is submitted that the account book is on the record which was filed two months after the filing of the suit. The rule enjoins that a copy of the accounts as contemplated under Clause (a) of Section 7 must be furnished along with the plaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff 's suit must be dismissed on that ground alone.