BHAGABAN DAS Vs. PUMA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the decision of a Small Cause Court Judge decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of a loan advanced on the basis of a hand note on 30 -10 -1950. One of the objections taken to the recovery of the loan was that the opposite party -Plaintiff was not a registered money lender and that consequently the suit was barred by Section 8 of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act. Before the lower court the Plaintiff contended that he had stopped his business of money -lending by the end of 1955 and that he resumed it only in 1960. During the intervening period he merely realised the loans previously advanced, but did not carryon the business of advancing loans. Hence it was urged on his behalf of that on the date of the loan in question, namely, 30 -10 -1956 the Plaintiff was not a professional money -lender, but only a casual moneylender and that consequently Section 8 of that Act did not operate as a bar.

(2.) THE finding of the lower court is that during the period from the end of 1955 till 1900 the Plaintiff was merely realising the money due to him in respect of the loans previously advanced and the only act: of money -lending during that period was the loan in question. Mr. Ray for the Petitioner urged that even though the Plaintiff might not have advanced loans after 1955 nevertheless as he was realising the money due to him in respect of the previous loans which were advanced in regular course of business, he must be deemed in the eye of law to be continuing the business of money -Tending during that period also. Hence according to him he ought to have got himself registered so as to entitle him to institute a suit in respect of the loan in question.