BASUDEV SAHU Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against a confirming decision decreeing plaintiff's suit for recovery of loan advanced by him together with interest on a promissory note. The defendants in the written statement took several pleas and both the courts below have given findings on different points which do not arise for consideration in view of the legal position as contended by Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and, as such, I am not going into details as those are unnecessary.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that by virtue of the Orissa Money-Lenders (Amendment) Act of 1975 (Orissa Act 54 of 1975) the claim of the' opposite parties shall stand abated by virtue of Section 18-B (8 ). Section 18-B (1)provides that the State Government may, from time to time, by notifications, require the money-lenders or money-lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in any local area, to produce before such authority and by such date as may be specified in the said notification, all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans. Sub-section (2)further provides that the authority specified in the notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall scrutinise the documents with a view to determining if the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and shall, after giving the money-lender a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass an order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the said certificate. In the instant case, it is admitted by the plaintiff that he has already registered himself as a money-lender under the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 18-B provides that no Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any loan advanced prior to the date of the order referred to in Sub-section (2) unless the particulars thereof are contained in the said order and all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated. Basing on this provision, Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the suit, in the present case, shall stand abated.

(3.) IN this connection, reliance is placed on Shankar Ramchandra v Krishnaji dattatraya, AIR 1970 SC 1, wherein it has been held: