HADIBANDHU MOHAPATRA Vs. KUNTALA BARIK ALIAS KUNTALA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 read with Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short) has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the decision Of the lower appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court and dismissing the suit. The petitioner filed the suit against the opposite parties for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,668/ - on the allegation that defendant No. 1 Bhagaban Barik, as Karta of the joint family of the defendants, took a loan of Rs. 1,000/ - from him on 12. 6. 1968 undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Having failed to receive the amount from the loanee, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for realisation of the amount. The further case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 had passed on a receipt Ext. 1 in token of receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. Subsequently he had paid a sum of Rs. 10/ - towards interest on 8. 4. 1971 and endorsement to this effect was made on the reverse of the document. The suit was filed on 6. 4. 1974.

(2.) THE opposite parties in their written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff -petitioner. They denied execution of the document Ext. 1, as well as the endorsement on the document. They denied receipt of the loan amount by defendant No. 1. It was their case that some blank papers with L. T.Is.is of defendant No. 1 had been handed over to the Bhadralogs of the village in connection with the village feud as Kaida, which have been subsequently utilised for the purpose of the suit.

(3.) SRI S. S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the lower appellate Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground of noncompliance of Section 18 -B of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act ('Act' for short) without giving him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the said provisions. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Narayan Choudhary v. Koka Das and Anr. 49(1980) CLT 524 and in the case of Chitranjan Mishra and Ors. v. Banamali Mishra and Ors., 1984 (I) OLR 732, 58(1984) CLT 409. Regarding the other grounds stated in the impugned judgment, the learned counsel contends that the finding is vitiated since the lower appellate Court has not at all considered the evidence in the case but has proceeded merely on the document Ext.