BALAKRISHNA BHOI Vs. PITAMBAR DANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is the Petitioner. The Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 10 of 1983 in the court of the Additional Munsif, Bolangir for realisation of money basing on a pronote.

(2.) IN the plaint it is averred that the Plaintiff is a registered money -lender. In the written statement the Defendant raised the contention that since the Plaintiff has not complied with Section 18B of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ace), the Money suit should not be entertained. The learned trial court considered the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue and held that though the Plaintiff is a registered money lender and the order as contemplated under Section 18B(2) of the Act has not been filed along with the plaint still the suit is to continue as the notification dated 9th July, 1975 is only meant for transactions prior to the date of notification as the notification indicates that within one month from the date of the publication the notification in the official gazette the money -lenders were to produce the records relating to their business before the authority and no further notification having been published and the Plaintiff need not comply with Section 18B(8) of the Act. This finding of the learned trial court is assailed in this Civil Revision. Section 18B(1) of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act reads as follows:

(3.) IN , 63 (1987) C.L.T. 63 Dayanidhi Misra v. Ramachandra Mishra alias Chandra Sekhar Mishra), it has been held that though Section 18B (2) and (8) of the Act uses the expression "shall not entertain" and time limit is not mandatory and the court is to afford reasonable time to the Plaintiff to comply with provisions of Section 18B(2) of the Act.