HADIBANDHU ROUTRAI Vs. MRINALINI CHATTERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises a question of construction of Section 10 of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's father Kamala Nath, advanced some money to the father of the Defendant in the year 1916 and as the amount remained unpaid he filed S.C.C. Suit No. 29 of 1923 against him And got A decree for Rs. 230/ - That decree again remained unsatisfied though the Defendant -judgment -debtor had paid Rs. 41/ - after the passing of the decree.

(3.) THE trial court upheld the Defendant's plea and allowed a decree for Rs. 68/ -. In its view, the Court was entitled to reopen the transaction go behind the decree, to ascertain what was the amount originally advanced by the Plaintiff. Against this judgment the Plaintiff appealed. His appeal was allowed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who was of the view that the Orissa Money -Lenders Act had no application to the facts of the case, and gave the Plaintiff a decree for Rs. 519.