GOKUL DAS Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision may be disposed of by the same judgment as the facts are very similar.

(2.) The applicants who are plaintiffs in two different suits are money-lenders by profession and their practice of money-lending is something like this. They send munims or trusted servants of theirs with money to villages in different districts with instructions to lend money to people who might stand in need of borrowing. It is alleged that the defendants in these two cases borrowed money from the plaintiff's agents, in one case in the district of Bareilly and in the other in the district of Shahjahanpur. The plaintiffs are residents of the district of Moradabad. The debtors did not pay and thereupon they brought the two suits for recovery of the money at Moradabad.

(3.) The defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs agents who had lent the money in each case went into the witness-box and swore that there was an express agreement by the debtors that they would re-pay the loans at Moradabad. The agents further produced memoranda made in the account books of the plaintiffs to the effect that the borrowers had agreed to re-pay the money at Moradabad.