CHANDRAMANI PADHAN Vs. BUDHANATH NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the Original plaintiff, Udhaba Pradhan, are the petitioners in this application under S.115, C.P.C.- directed against the Judgment dated 25th April, 1981 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri in Money Appeal No. 2/9 of 1980/79 allowing the appeal.

(2.) Late Udhaba Pradhan, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 filed O.S. No. 35/77-3 in the court of the Munsif, Puri against the Opposite Parties, who are brothers, for realisation of Rs. 2000/-. The gist of the case made out in the plaint was that the plaintiff, a registered money lender, advanced a loan of Rs. 1500/ to the defendants on their request. Sarat Chandra Naik, defendant No. 2 (opposite party No. 2) executed a hand-note for the amount in favour of the plaintiff on 10-3-1974. The amount was advanced for meeting the needs of the joint family for the two defendants and the amount was spent for the said purpose. Since the defendants failed to repay the amount the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for the amount advanced along with a sum of Rs. 500/- towards interest from 10-3-1974 to 10-3-1977. The defendant 2 in his written statement admitted the execution of the hand-note but denied having taken the loan of Rs. 1500/-. He asserted that he had incurred a loan of Rs, 500/- only from the plaintiff and had repaid the same along with Rs. 20/- towards interest. According to the defendants it was a practice with the plaintiff to insist on hand notes for three times the amount actually advanced and the defendants being in urgent necessity for the money had no other alternative but to agree to execute the document. The defendant took a further plea that though the plaintiff possessed a license for doing money-lending business for Rs. 5000/- yet he had transacted business up to Rs. 20,000/- and he had suppressed this fact. The defendants pleaded for dismissal of the suit on this ground.

(3.) The trial Court framed six issues of which issue No. 2 was, if the suit was hit by the provisions of Orissa Money Lenders Act. The court in its judgment dated 22-3-1979 decreed the suit against the defendants holding that the suit hand note (Ext. 1) was genuine and for consideration and the defendants are liable to pay the amount of Rs. 1500/- stated in the hand note together with interest as agreed to by them. Discussing issue No. 2 referred to above, the court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any specific evidence that the plaintiff has violated the conditions of the licence it cannot be held that the suit is hit by the provisions of Orissa Money Lenders Act.