JUDHISTIR JENA Vs. KASINATH CHNARA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,448/ - from Defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of a promissory note (ext. 1) executed by Defendant No. 1 on 10 -6 -1957. Defendant No. 1 admitted execution, but denied receipt of consideration. His defence is that he received some old gold ornaments from the Plaintiff for making new ornaments. Gold being of considerable value, Plaintiff took the suit pro -note by way of security. He prepared the ornaments and returned the same within two months. Despite repeated requests, Plaintiff did not return the promissory note. The maintainability of the suit was attacked the ground that on the date of the loan, Plaintiff had no' money -lending licence, though he was registered money -lender. Defendant No. 2's liability was denied.

(2.) BOTH the Courts concurrently found that the promissory note is genuine, for consideration and was not given by way of security and that Defendant No. 2 was not liable. These findings were not assailed by Mr. Sinha for the Respondents. The suit was however dismissed on the ground that on the date of the suit loan, Plaintiff had no licence, though he was a money lender in regular course of business.

(3.) ON the aforesaid facts, the controversy between the parties may be stated. Plaintiff contends that the second registration certificate dated 23 -5 -1955 granted under Section 5 of the Act was in force for five years from the date on which it was granted. The suit loan having been advanced during this period, Plaintiff had a valid registration certificate and the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. The argument on behalf of Defendant No. l is that the second registration certificate and that the life of the second certificate is co -extensive with the first and must expire on 14 -4 -1957. After that date, he being a money -lender in regular course of business the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Act. The rival contentions require close examination.