SHYAMSUNDER SAHU Vs. GAGAN BEHERA
LAWS(ORI)-1978-10-9
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on October 23,1978

Shyamsunder Sahu Appellant
VERSUS
Gagan Behera Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.N.Misra, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF is the Petitioner. He filed Money Suit No. 77 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsif at Balasore for recovery of Rs. 1358/ - from the Defendant on the allegation that the Defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - on the basis of a promissory note (Ext. 1) dated 5 -8 -1970 undertaking to pay interest and failed to pay the same on demand. The defence was a denial of the loan and it was pleaded that the Defendant had stood surety for a loan of Rs. 500/ - incurred by one Rajkishore Panda and had passed on a blank paper with his two signatures to Panda and had passed on a blank paper with his two signatures to the Plaintiff. Several issues were framed and both sides led evidence in support of their respective stands. The learned Trial Judge came to hold that the suit promissory note was not a genuine one. He also found that the Plaintiff had not completed with the provisions of Section 18 -B(2) of the Orissa Money -Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and accordingly dismissed the suit. As the claim in the litigation was below Rs. 3,000/ - and no appeal lay, the revision was filed.
(2.) ON 27 -1 -1978, a learned Single Judge before whom this matter came, directed that the revision application be placed before a Division Bench for hearing along with Civil Revision No. 275 of 1977 -Dibakar Pradhan v. Sk. Miskini which is separately disposed of today. The finding of the learned Munsif about the promissory note being not genuine is one of pure fact and on the materials which have been clearly indicated in the judgment, we do not think, it would be appropriate for us to disturb the finding. So far as the requirement of Sub -section (8) of Section 18 -B of the Act is concerned, admittedly there has been no compliance There is absolutely no force in the contention of Plaintiffs counsel that when the materials had been produced, it was open to the trial Court to find out whether the legislative purpose under Section 18 -B(l) of the Act had been satisfied or not. We do not think, this contention can succeed. Section 18 -B of the Act contemplates of a separate forum and a different machinery for the investigation. Under Sub -section (6) a right of appeal is conferred and under Sub -section (7) the order subject to the appellate decision becomes final and not to be questioned in any Court. In view of these provisions, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to investigate into the matter must be taken to have been ousted. As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of Section 18 -B(8) of the Act, the learned Trial Judge was also justified in dismissing the suit.
(3.) THERE is no merit in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order for costs. B.K. Ray, J . I agree. Revision dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.