RABIRAM BHOI Vs. HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a money suit is the petitioner. The plaintiff-opposite party has not entered appearance in spite of notice.

(2.) PADDY and money in cash had been borrowed under Ext. 1 dated 31-7-1965. Some payment was made tinder Ext. A dated 17-4-1968. As the defendant omitted to pay the balance in spite of demand, the suit was instituted.

(3.) THE defence raised in the suit was that paddy to the extent indicated in Ext. 1, the promissory note had not been taken and there had been a full payment of the paddy that was actually taken. The plaintiff was a money-lender in usual course of business and having not obtained registration, the suit was not maintainable under section 8 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act.