- (1.) This is a Plaintiffs' application in revision directed against the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below dismissing the Plaintiff-applicant's suit for recovery of certain sum of money said to have been advanced to the Defendant-opposite party on the basis of promissory note. The suit was filed on 20-1-1976. While the suit was pending before the trial court, the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 came into force. The Act received the assent of the President on 17-7-1976 and was published in the U.P. Gazette on 20-7-1976. After the coming into force of this Act, the Defendant-opposite party raised a plea that the Plaintiff-applicant's suit was barred by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. An issue was struck on the plea raised by the Defendant-opposite-party as issue No. 3 which was to the effect, whether the suit of the Plaintiff was barred by Sections 18 and 26 of U.P. Act No. 29 of 1976. The trial court held that the provisions of Sections 18 and 26 of the aforesaid Act barred the suit inasmuch as the Plaintiff-applicant had not got himself registered as a money lender within three months of the commencement of the Act. On this finding, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiff-applicant's suit.
(2.) Aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate court has also held that the suit was barred by Sections 18 and 26 of the aforesaid Act. The lower appellate court has observed that inasmuch as the Plaintiff had not furnished the necessary information to the Registrar about the present loan, the suit was incompetent in law. The lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiff-opposite-party (?) on this finding without going into the merits of the suit.
(3.) Aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted two points for my consideration: (1) The provisions of Sections 18 and 26 Sub-section (4) of the aforesaid Act have no application to the suit which was already pending before the commencement of the Act. (2) The courts below have acted with illegality and material irregularity in non-suiting the Plaintiff-applicant without considering the question whether the Plaintiff-applicant was a money lender as defined under the aforesaid Act. Learned Counsel submitted that it was for the Defendant to establish that the applicant was a money lender within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Plaintiff is not a money lender. He urged that an isolated transaction of lending money to the Defendant-opposite-party did not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiff-applicant was doing the business of money lending as contemplated under the aforesaid Act.;