CHANDLER BHAN Vs. GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chander Bhan defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 10.6.1980, passed by the District Judge, Jind, vide which suit of Gobind Ram respondent for recovery of Rs. 7,200/- was decreed with costs.

(2.) In the instant case, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,200/- against the appellant on the basis of pronote and receipt (Ex. P-4). The appellant denied the execution of the alleged pronote and receipt and pleaded that he did not take any loan from the respondent. He also took the plea that the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable. He further pleaded that the respondent, being a money lender, neither obtained any licence under the provisions of Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1938') nor complied with the provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues including material issues No. 1 and 5, which are being re-produced hereunder, were framed by the learned trial Court :

(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent. Though all the material issues were decided in his favour and execution of the pronote and receipt was held to be proved, but the suit was dismissed on account of the fact that the respondent was a money lender and did not obtain any licence for money lending under the provisions of the Act of 1938. Against the said judgment, the respondent filed appeal, which was allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and suit of the respondent was decreed. The learned first appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 5 and held that the respondent was not a money lender, as such no licence was required under the Act of 1938. Against this judgment and decree, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant.