Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This is an application for a summary judgment and decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. The case made out by the plaintiff may be summarised thus : a) At the request of the defendant the plaintiff lent and advanced to the defendant a sum of Rs. 10 lakh by a cheque dated November 5, 1998 drawn on Deutsche Bank, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta on condition that the said amount will be repayable by the defendant after 90 days with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum. b) Although the term of the loan expired on February 4, 1999, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the said loan or any part thereof or any interest thereon inspite of repeated requests. c) In reply to the letter of demand dated February 25, 1999, the defendant by his letter dated March 5, 1999 falsely alleged that the plaintiff agreed to extend the term of loan for a further period of one year from due date of repayment of the said loan on the same terms and conditions. d) The said allegation of the defendant was refuted by the plaintiff by letter dated March 19, 1999. e) The defendant however by two different cheques dated April 10, 1999 and November 16, 1999 paid a sum of Rs. 36,986.30 paise and Rs. 74,384/- respectively on account of interest for the period from November 6, 1998 to February 3, 1999 and from February 4, 1999 to August 3, 1999 respectively. f) Even, after the expiry of further period of one year from due date of repayment, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the said loan amount or any part thereof or any further interest thereon notwithstanding demands. g) Therefore, total amount payable by defendant to the plaintiff is Rs. 10 lakh towards principal and Rs. 1,00,685/- towards interest thereon from August 4, 1999 till April 5, 2000 at the rate of 15% per annum aggregated Rs. 11,00,685/-. In support of the case made out by the plaintiff, she has annexed all the receipts and letters etc. mentioned in the plaint.
(2.) Although the present proceedings under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules have been opposed by Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant but no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Mr. Mitra, however, has taken a pure question of law challenging the maintainability of the present proceedings.
(3.) According to Mr. Mitra, in the absence of any material showing that the plaintiff has a money-lending licence as required under the provision of Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the suit is not maintainable and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the application. In support of such contention Mr. Mitra strongly relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Tody v. Amolak Chand Champalal & Ors. 1993(2) CLJ 135.;