DALJIT KUMAR Vs. POPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Popal Dass respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 570/- against the petitioners on the basis of a Pronote. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs 500/- in favour of the respondent being the principal amount, but declined the claim for interest and costs in view of the fact that the respondent who was admittedly a money lender had not sent any accounts to the petitioners before filing the suit. The appellate Court, i.e. the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, affirmed the decree of the trial Court. The present Revision Petition has, therefore, been filed by the petitioners to challenge the decree passed in the suit.

(2.) The respondent has not chosen to appear in spite of service, nor is he represented by any counsel in fact, according to the report of the process serving agency, he refused to accept the summons. He is, therefore, presumed to have been served. The revision Petition has been heard ex parte.

(3.) The sole point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent having been admitted to be a money lender, he had a statutory duty under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 to produce the certificate of registration granted under the Act which he never did. A consequence of this default is that his suit has to be dismissed as prescribed under Section 3 of the Act. This mandatory provision of law appears to have been ignored by both the Courts below. If any authority is required on the point, the same is contained in Kapur Singh v. Firm Bhagwan Das Sat Pal, (1971) 73 Punj LR 628.