Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THE only point raised in this second appeal is that the suit was barred by Section 26 of the Regulation of Money Lending Act inasmuch as the signatures of the Plaintiff on the form No. 10 -were not dated, although Rule 19(2) requires that every page of the statement shall bear the dated signature of the money lender, as explained in Rule 17(2). The Explanation to Rule 17(2) is not relevant in the present case. The certified copy of form No. 10, Ext. 4, shows that the original of that form was signed by Lakhpat Rai, but there was no date below his signature. Rule 19(4) directs that the Registrar shall put his dated signature on every page of the statement and shall also put his official seal thereon. The Registrar's dated signatures do appear to have been made on the form No. 10, according to its certified copy (Ext. 4). The statement in form No. 10 is required to be submitted according to Rule 19(1) for complying with the requirements of Section 26(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976.
(2.) MR . Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the requirement of dated signature was mandatory and the Plaintiff not having dated his signatures on form No. 10, as required by Rule 19(2), the requirements of Section 26 of the Act were not fulfilled, inasmuch as Sub -section (1) of that section says that "Every money lender...shall submit to the Registrar, a statement in the prescribed form...." It is true that the requirement of dating the signatures is a necessary requirement and the statement has to be submitted in the prescribed form. The question is about effect of not dating the signatures. In this context, the learned Counsel relied upon the rule of law declared by the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare : AIR 1975 SC 915, to the effect that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The present case is distinguishable and that rule is not applicable to the present situation inasmuch as Section 26 of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act does not confer any power on a money lender. It only regulates his right to sue on a debt due to him. In such a situation, it is the substance of the matter which has to be seen and not merely the form. The statement had been submitted in form No. 10, as prescribed by the rules. The only defect was that the Plaintiff could have got the defect removed, but the Registrar did not do so. Instead he granted a certificate to the Plaintiff. It cannot be said that the requirements of Section 26 were not substantially complied with. I say so also because there can be case where a money lender is illiterate and instead of signing the form merely thumb marks it and could not date it because he does not know how to do that. Although such a situation is not likely to arise frequently, nevertheless the fact remains that the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 does not provide that every money lender before he can sue upon a debt, must himself be literate and also know how to sign and date his signatures. Another objection raised was that additional evidence was directed to be adduced before it by the Lower Appellate Court, but no opportunity was given to the Defendant to rebut. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is in two parts. The 1st part is dated 28th April, 1982. After holding that the promissory note (Ext. 2) was executed by the Defendant and that the Defendant had borrowed the sum of Rs. 2380/ - from the Plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court considered the point raised before it that the suit was hit by Section 26 of the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976. The Lower Appellate Court observed that so far as Section 26 is concerned, the form, which had duly been furnished is on the record, vide Ext 4, and, so far as Section 18 is concerned, it was pointed out that the plea was not raised in the written statement and not even in the grounds of appeal. The Lower Appellate Court allowed that plea to be raised before it for the first time and on that it also observed that it needed the certificate to see whether the suit of the Plaintiff was hit under Section 18 of the Act. The further hearing of the appeal was taken up on 6 -5 -82 and on that date the certificate of registration was produced before the Lower Appellate Court for the period 1 -5 -76 to 21 -8 -1977 and for the renewal granted for the period 1 -9 -77 to 31 -8 -1978. The Defendant never challenged the genuineness of the certificate of registration which was produced, and never asked for any opportunity to rebut the same, as he must have known that it would be futile to do so. Even here the learned Counsel did not specify the manner in which he wanted to rebut the certificate of registration and the nature or the precise evidence which he wanted to read in rebuttal thereof.
(3.) NO other point was pressed before me.;