BALESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. LAL BAHADUR PRASAD CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As complicated questions of law were involved, the case was referred to a Division Bench. Hence, it has been placed before us.

(2.) There is no dispute in this case that Lal Bahadur Choudhary (defendant No. 1) borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,500/- from the plaintiff and in token thereof he executed a handnote on November 1, 1955, stipulating to pay interest at the rate of one per cent. per month. A suit for recovery of the aforesaid sum, namely, Rs. 3,500/- together with the interest amounting to Rs. 2,537/8/- was instituted on November 16, 1961. The suit apparently is barred by limitation, but the limitation is tried to be saved by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant No. 1 executed a fresh handnote on October 27, 1958 and, as such, fresh period of limitation started from that date. The Civil Courts were closed for the annual Vacation from October 9 to November 15, 1961 and re-opened on November 16, 1961, and hence the suit was filed on the reopening day. It may be stated here that the plaintiff had brought the suit originally on the basis of the handnote dated October 27, 1958 but subsequently, he got the plaint amended and the suit, as it stands at present, is for the recovery of the loan of Rs. 3,500/- taken on the basis of the previous handnote dated November 1, 1955 and interest from that date till the date of the institution of the suit at one per cent. per month is sought to be recovered on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,500/-.

(3.) The defence in this case was that (i) the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) the loan under the handnote dated November 1, 1955 was paid off long before the handnote of October 27, 1958 when a fresh loan of Rs. 4,700/-was taken and, subsequently, the dues under this handnote were also paid off by executing another handnote, but the handnote dated October 27, 1958 was not returned to the defendants and (iii) that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, as the plaintiff was not a registered money lender.