BULEI BARIKA Vs. LOKANATH MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Defendant 1 is the petitioner. The plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 185/-on a promissory note dated 18-5-50 on the allegation that defendant 1 executed the document. He (the plaintiff) had also made defendants 2 and 3 parties to the suit on the allegation that they were joint with defendant 1. Defendant 1 alone contested the suit. He had taken three points on contest: (i) that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not got himself registered as a money-lender; (ii) he denied the loan claimed and the execution of the promissory note; and (iii) that defendants 2 and 3 are separate, and as such, they are not bound. The learned Court below dismissed the suit against defendants 2 and 3 but decreed the suit against defendant 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 184/- with full costs.

(2.) THE learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner (defendant 1) takes up only one point that the suit must stand dismissed on account of the reason that the plaintiff has not registered himself as a money-lender. He relies upon Section 8, Orissa Money Lenders Act. Section 8 runs thus: