MT SURAJBANSI KUER Vs. MTLARHO KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1132-12-7, including principal and interest. The plaintiff according to her allegation in the plaint is a timber merchant, and this allegation is not denied in the written statement. In course of her business, as a timber merchant, she had supplied some timber to the defendants, and for the purpose of ensuring payment of price of the timber she accepted a hand note for a Bum of Rs. 651 in lieu thereof on 1 June 1928. This hand-note is Ex. 1. The money due under the hand-note was not paid, and, therefore, in course of time, on 25 May 1941, another hand-note (Ex. 2) was executed, by way of renewal, for a sum of Rs. 888 as principal, and that sum included the original liability of Rs. 651 plus interest that accrued due till that date. This hand-note (Ex. 2) also carried interest, according to the stipulation, at the rate of Re. 1 per cent, pes mensem. The present suit is for recovery of the sum aforesaid due in terms of Ex. 2.

(2.) The defendants raised various pleas in their written defences, but at the trial they stuck to one only of them, namely, the plea in bar of the suit under the provisions of Section 4, Bihar Money-lenders Act, 1989. The learned Munsif who tried the suit came to the conclusion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 4, Bihar Money-lenders Act, was a bar to the plaintiff's suit, and, therefore, he dismissed it so far as the suit embraced the relief for recovery of the sura due under the hand-note aforesaid, but decreed the claim for another sum of Rs. 184 odd which had also been included in the same suit, being the arrears of price of further supply of timber to the defendants. The plaintiff went up in appeal, and the defendants too filed a cross-appeal.

(3.) The appellate Court, however, took a different view, and found that Section 4, Bihar Money-lenders Act, did not apply to the case. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit, and dismissed the defendants cross-appeal as against the decree for recovery of Rs. 134 odd as it was not pressed.