SHOUGRAKPAM PURNIMA SINGH Vs. LUNGNINGAM GANGMEI
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-6-9
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on June 14,2019

Shougrakpam Purnima Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Lungningam Gangmei Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NOBIN SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri R.K. Nokulsana, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and none is present for the respondent.
(2.) The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bishnupur in Judl. Misc. Case No.167 of 2017 [O(M)S. No.2 of 2014].
(3.) Facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of the instant revision petition, are that the respondent filed a suit being O.(M).S. No.2 of 2014 against the petitioner praying for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty Thousand) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of decree till the realization of decreetal amount. In the said plaint, it has been stated by the respondent that although he is a businessman by occupation, he was/ is not a money lender by occupation and he does not deal with the business of money lending. On 10.11.2013, the petitioner being a friend approached him for a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh) which the respondent agreed and accordingly, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the petitioner who, in turn, executed a money receipt in favour of the respondent in the presence of two witnesses. The petitioner also executed a demand promissory note and a loan agreement in favour of the respondent assuring to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 4% per month with effect from 01.11.2013 and in the loan agreement, the petitioner agreed that he would execute a deed in favour of the respondent for mortgaging his homestead land with delivery of possession and that the respondent was granted liberty to enter into possession of his homestead land in the event of his failure to repay the loan within the stipulated time. Since the petitioner having failed to repay the loan amount as agreed, the respondent filed the said suit. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint stating that he never approached the respondent for a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and in addition thereto, it has been stated that no one without having a valid licence under Section 6 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 1946 can advance money to be recovered with interest. Since the respondent filed the suit for recovery of money with interest, he ought to have a valid licence, otherwise the suit could not have been proceeded under Section 10 of the said Act. The petitioner approached the respondent for giving some money for which he agreed to mortgage his homestead land and under such consideration, the petitioner asked the respondent to give a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only for an urgent need for which he signed some blank stamp papers. When the money receipt dated 01.11.2013 filed by the respondent along with the suit was checked and verified, it was found that the Non Judicial Stamp on which the money receipt was written, bears the date of 26.12.2013 on its overleaf, from which it is evident that the respondent had manufactured a document and the loan amount alleged to have been taken on 01.11.2013, could not be acknowledged in a later date i.e. 26.12.2013. An application being Judl. Misc Case No.312 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner praying for directing the respondent to produce the licence issued under the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and also for staying the proceedings of the suit. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bishnupur on the ground that it was not proved that the respondent was/ is a money lender and that there was no need for the Court under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act to direct the respondent to file a licence of money lending business. Another application being Judl. Misc Case No.167 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for taking up issue No.3 as preliminary issue but the same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bishnupur on the ground that it was barred by res-judicata and also on the ground of its being infructuous. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.05.2017, the instant Civil Revision has been filed before this Court on the inter-alia grounds that the respondent has failed to submit an application as provided under Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act; that the petitioner has not adduced his evidence and exhibited documents to prove that the respondent is a money lender; that the matter relating to the stay of the proceedings of the suit shall be considered only when the respondent has filed an application and that the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bishnupur has decided the issue No.3 before the evidence being adduced by the petitioner. ;


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