VIJAY KUMAR SUD Vs. SUNIL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Single Judge, dated 13.9.2002, vide which the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 12,44,000/, alongwith future interest, was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that defendant had business dealings with Hanwant Dass Sud, the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs. During the course of such dealings, the defendant had taken loans from the deceased Hanwant Dass Sud on 4.6.1995, 26.7.1995, 9.10.1995, 9.11.1995 and 14.12.1995, respectively in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, Rs. 50,000/ -, Rs. 1,00,000/ -, Rs. 1,00,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - and had promised to repay the loans alongwith interest at the rate of 3.5% per month. It was alleged that defendant executed demand promissory notes for the consideration received by him agreeing to repay the loan amount on demand. In addition, the defendant also took cash loans from the deceased and issued three cheques. Thus, the principal amount taken by the defendant from the deceased amounted to Rs. 7,00,000/ -. It was further alleged that the deceased Hanwant Dass Sood had applied to the Collector for being registered as money -lender under the Registration of Money Lenders Act, but he died during the pendency of his application on 13.12.1996. After the death of the deceased Hanwant Dass Sud, the plaintiffs, who are his legal representatives, requested the defendant to repay the amount alongwith interest, which was not paid, hence the suit for the recovery amounting to Rs. 12,43,500/ -.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Single Judge: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether deceased Hanumant Dass was not a registered money lender? If so its effect? OPD