RAMBUJHAWAN KUMAR Vs. SHIVA NANDAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a small cause suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 544/- on the basis of a promissory note executed on the 2nd of February, 1975. The loan was for Rupees 400/-. The remaining amount has been claimed by way of interest.

(2.) The suit was filed on the 31st of January, 1978. In spite of notice, the defendant did not appear to contest the case. The plaintiff examined himself and proved the loan. So far the merit of the claim is concerned, the Court below held in his favour. However, the suit has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1975, requiring a money lender plaintiff to file a copy of the relevant extracts from his register of accounts which has to be maintained under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act. In this case the plaintiff-petitioner had, in fact, filed a copy of the relevant extract from his register but the Court below has held that the provisions of Section 7 (5) were not fully satisfied as the extract did not bear any endorsement by any authority. Mr. Khaleel, appearing in support of the present application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, contended that Sec. 7 (5) does not require any endorsement on the copy to be filed. He is correct. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 states that all the accounts maintained by a money lender and all documents in respect of loan advanced by him by which he may be in possession and his registration certificate shall be liable to be inspected and examined by such authority as may be prescribed by the State Government. But neither this Sub-section nor any other provision appears to lay down that the copy to be filed by a plaintiff under Section 7 (5) has to be authenticated by any particular authority. It is another matter that the Court may feel doubtful about the correctness of the copy and in that case the plaintiff may be required to prove its authenticity by production of the original register or of any other evidence which may satisfy the Court. But that does not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff must have the copy authenticated by any particular authority before filing the same in the Court.

(3.) In the present case, the plaintiff has pledged his oath not only for proving the advance of loan but also with respect to the copy which he has filed. The Court has accepted his evidence as reliable. The view in regard to the requirement of Section 7 (5) of the Act, on the basis of which the suit has been dismissed, is, therefore, clearly illegal. In the circumstances, this revision application is allowed, the decision of the Court below is set aside and the suit is decreed for the amount claimed with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum. The plaintiff will also get costs admissible for the Court below for ex parte trial. There will be no order as to the costs of this Court.