BADRI PARSAAD Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for recovery of Rs. 510/ - on the basis of an acknowledgement, dated June 3, 1961, with the amount of interest, all totalling to Rs. 860/ -, was brought by Badri Parshad applicant against Bachan Singh respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit as regards the amount of Rs. 510/ - of the acknowledgement with entire costs including the stamp duty and penalty paid by the applicant because he had to prove the disputed acknowledgement and three earlier acknowledgements by the respondent so as to prove consideration for the disputed acknowledgement since he had to prove consideration for that the Trial Court disallowed interest claimed by the applicant finding that he is a money lender but that the did not send the accounts regularly and has not produced the copies of the periodical accounts'. The decree of the trial Court is of December 17, 1964.

(2.) THERE was an appeal by the respondent against the decree which was disposed of by the Senior Subordinate Judge on June 15, 1965, when he maintained the decree for the amount of Rs. 510/ - in favour of the applicant but disallowed the total amount of the costs on the ground that the applicant being a money -lender had not complied with section 3 (1)(a) of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, 1960 (Punjab Act 1 of 1960). with the result that he was not entitled to costs according to section 4 (b) of that Act. This is a revision application against the appellate decree by the applicant. It is confined only to the question of costs disallowed by the appellate Court to the applicant in the decree against the respondent.

(3.) THE parties belong to Sunam which is in the former Pepsu area. There was in force in Pepsu on and from July 21, 1956, the Pepsu Money Lenders Act, 1956 (Pepsu Act 8 of 1956), of which, so far as the present case is concerned, section 3 in substance is a reproduction of section 3 of Punjab Act 1 of 1930, with minor omissions and alterations, of which note need not be taken here because those have no bearing on the facts of this case. Punjab Act 1 of 1930 was extended to the former Pepsu area by the Punjab Money Lending and Debtors Protection Laws (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1980 (Punjab Act, 44 of 1960), with effect from December 30, 1960. Section 3 of this last mentioned Act inserted section 4 -A in Punjab Act 1 of 1930, but made that section operative from December 30, 1960, except in the case of a fresh transaction in respect of an earlier loan which transaction is made after that date. In the present case the last balance entry is of June 3, 1951 and hence after that date, and so the new section 4 -A would be attracted, bat benefit of sub -section (1) of that section has not been available to the respondent because after December 30, 1960, no repayment was made by him as a debtor. The combined effect of section 3 of Pepsu Act 8 of 1956 and of section 6 of Punjab Act 1 of 1930 is that so far as the present case is concerned, the substantive part of the provisions of section 3 of the first Act down to December 30, 1960, and of the second Act from that date to the date of the suit applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.