S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition are as under: Nazir, Respondent No. 3, borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,000/ - from the Petitioner Amar Nath on 1st July, 1974, on an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. On that very day, he executed a promissory note and a receipt in favour of the Plaintiff Petitioner. Since the amount was not paid by Nazir, the Petitioner filed a suit No. 30 of 1976 for recovery of Rs. 12,492/ -in the court of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, on the basis of the promissory note and the receipt date 1st July, 1974. In the suit, only two issues were framed, firstly, as to whether Nazir borrowed Rs. 9,000/ - on an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month and executed the disputed promissory note and the receipt, as alleged, and, secondly, to what relief is the Plaintiff entitled. The trial court, after examining the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the promissory note and the receipt were executed by Nazir and that a sum of Rs. 9,000/ - had been advanced by the Petitioner to the Defendant Nazir on 1st July, 1974. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 27th July, 1977. This judgment has become final, as no appeal has been filed against the said judgment.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the Plaintiff Petitioner filed an application for execution of the said decree. In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor filed objections Under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure The main objection was that no decree can be passed against the judgment debtor in the absence of the registration as a money lender. It was further pointed out that the loan in question had not been shown in and as such, the decree passed in the suit was without jurisdiction and a nullity. These objections were considered by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur. By an order dated 4th January, IV79, the objections were allowed. The execution was dismissed and it was held and the decree holder was not entitled to recover the amount through execution and the property attached was, consequently, released. Aggrieved by this decision dated 4th January, IV79, a revision was filed before the District Judge, Saharanpur. The revision came up for hearing before the 4th Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. By an order dated 14th January, 19b0, the revision was also dismissed. The Petitioner has now Challenged the orders dated 4th January, 1979 and 14th January, 1980, by means of the present petition in this Court.;