DAYASAGAR BOHIDAR Vs. SUKARAM KHADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff is the Petitioner. The suit was brought for recovery of Rs. 500/ -. The Plaintiff advanced Rs. 90/ - on 8 -5 -1956 under Ext. 2, Rs. 125/ - on 4 -12 -1957 under Ext. 3 and Rs. 200/ - on 5 -3 -1959 under Ext. 4. The Plaintiff was registered as a money -lender on 12 -1 -1951. He renewed the registration certificate on 24 -8 -1956. The defence was a mere denial and that the Defendant was a minor.

(2.) THE learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the defence contention. He accepted the Plaintiff 's case that exts. 2, a and 4 were for consideration and that these documents are genuine. He dismissed the Plaintiff 's suit on a finding that the Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 11(iii) of the Orissa Money Lenders Rules, which states that every plaint in a suit by a money -lender advancing loans in regular course of business must contain, amongst other particulars, a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act relevant to the case. It is conceded that the Plaintiff produced the account as required under Section 7(a), with regard to each of these loans in suit with reference to the Defendant. The learned (sic) Judge dismissed the suit holding that the account so produced was not in conformity with the requirement of the rule, and that the Plaintiff was required to produce his entire account book relating to all debtors and not merely relating to the debts in suit.

(3.) ON the aforesaid view and on the finding that there was consideration for exts.3 and 4, the Plaintiff 's suit for Rs. 125/ - under Ext. 3 and Rs. 200/ - under Ext. 4 with interest must be decreed. The claim for Rs. 90/ - under Ext. 2 must be dismissed, as admittedly on 8 -5 -1906 the Plaintiff did not get himself registered as a money -lender though he was required to do so.