Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) THIS revision has arisen in the following circumstances:
(2.) ON 15th June, 1967, a suit was filed by firm Bhagwan Dass Sat Pal of Bhatinda (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff -firm) against Kapur Singh for the recovery of Rs. 945 -00. Rs. 700/ - as principal and Rs. 245 as interest in respect of money borrowed on 17th June, 1964. Inter alia the objection taken in the written statement filed on 31st July, 1967, was that the Plaintiff -firm was a money -lender. Replication was filed by the Plaintiff -firm on 25th August, 1967, in which it was admitted, that the firm was a money -lender, and a certificate of registration under the Punjab Registration of money -lenders Act, 1938 (III of 1938), hereinafter referred to as the Act was filed, which was valid till 8th June, 1968. No specific issue was framed with regard to the question, whether the suit was liable to dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff -firm was not duly registered or whether it held a valid licence, but under the issue of relief, the learned trial Court held as follows: The Plaintiff has produced money -lenders licence Exhibit P.D, This licence is valid upto 8th of June, 1968, i.e. upto a date much before the decision of the suit. So Clause (b) stands excluded. Now, there is no material, much less any evidence, to show that the Plaintiff was registered and held a valid licence on the date of institution. The plaint does not state so. The licence does not bear the date of issue. The statement of the Plaintiff on this, point is silent. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff has to be dismissed. On appeal, the first appellate Court held as follows: I find that there should have been a specific issue on this point. Therefore, I frame the following issue: Whether the Appellant held a Money Lending Licence at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of decreeing the suit? He asked for a report under Order 41, Rule 25, Code of Civil Procedure, thus keeping the appeal on the record of the appellate Court.
(3.) AFTER remand, evidence was recorded by the trial Court and a report sent.;