JURIA SAHU Vs. DAMO BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is at the instance of the Plaintiff who brought the suit against the opp. party on 9 -4 -1980 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,640.48 paise. The case of the Petitioner, briefly stated, is that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,176/ - to the opp. party on a promissory note on 20 -4 -1976 of which an amount of Rs. 100/ - was paid on 11 -4 -1977 endorsing the payment on the back of the promissory note. The opp. party did not challenge the execution of the promissory note or the loan but contested the suit on the basis that it was not entertainable since the Petitioner had not obtained a licence from the Tahasildar as provided under Section 3 of the Orissa (Scheduled Areas) Money Lenders ' Regulation, 1967 (Orissa Regulation 2 of 1968) (for short, called the Regulation). Such plea by the opp. party was accepted by the learned Additional Munsif to dismiss the suit. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which having been rejected on the selfsame ground, he has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) THE opp. party has not appeared before this Court in spite of notice. Mr. Ashok Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner urges that both the Courts below have failed to consider the essential fact to be determined in the case, as to whether Surada, which is the 'place where the promissory note was executed, was included as a Schedule area 'On the date of execution of the promissory note. The plea that the suit was hit by the provisions of Regulation had been taken in the written statement and in appeal, as it appears from the grounds thereof, the Petitioner had specifically raised the question, that the suit should not have been dismissed without evidence that suit village was within the scheduled areas.

(3.) IN support of his contention Mr. Mohanty has relied upon the Scheduled, Areas (Part A States) Order, 1950 (Constitution order No. 9). In the Order different areas in Part A States were declared as the Schedule areas. In the Order, so far as the Orissa was concerned, Pandakhol Mutha of Surada Mulia fees was included as a Scheduled area: An amendment of the Constitution Order No. 9 of 1950 was made by the Scheduled Areas (State of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977 in which the entire Surada Tahasil, excluding Gazalbadi and Gocha Grama Panchayats of Ghumsar Sub -Division was declared as the Scheduled Area. Mr. Mohanty urges that since the entire Surada Tahasil was not declared as the Scheduled Area in 1950 and the amendment including Surada Tahasil excluding certain areas came only in 1977, the provision of Section 3 of the Regulation was not applicable to the suit transaction on the date of the loan and hence the suit should not have been dismissed as not entertainable.