Dua, J. - (1.) RATTI Ram instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/ - on 10th June, 1957. It appears that a plea was raised that the plaintiff was a money -lender and should, therefore, produce a valid registration certificate under the Pepsu Money Lenders' Act (Act No. 8 of 1956). Proceedings in the suit were thus stayed on 5th August, 1957. Apparently, on account of the provisions of section 22 of the Act, it also appears that the necessary rules under the statute were not framed for some time after the enforcement of the Act with the result that it took the plaintiff some time to secure the necessary certificate. The requisite certificate ending 31st December, 1959 was ultimately secured. The next date in the suit was fixed for 9th January, 1960 but, as luck would have it, on 8th January, 1960 Ratti Ram died. On 6th February, 1960 the legal representatives of Ratti Ram applied for the restoration of the suit which was restored on 22nd June, 1960. It was decreed on 13th October, 1960.
(2.) AN appeal was taken to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur. It appears that the judgment -debtor -appellant, inter alia, raised the contention that the licence produced on behalf of the plaintiff related to the year 1959 which expired on 31st December 1959 and that at the time of the decree or even at the time of the restoration of the suit, the plaintiff did not possess any licence. It was also urged that in the defendant's reply dated 6th February 1960, restoration of the suit was objected to on this ground. On behalf of the decree -holder it was argued that Ratti Ram had died on 8th January 1960 and that his legal representatives could not be considered to be money -lenders within the Pepsu Money -lenders' Act. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the legal representatives and successors -in -interest of a money -lender fell within the definition of the expression "money -lender" and, that, therefore, the legal representatives of Ratti Ram should have secured the requisite certificate. It was also contended that the license for the year 1960 had been duly obtained but the Court did not find any material on the record to uphold this assertion. According to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, section 22 of the Money Lenders' Act lays down that no suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by a money lender can be brought in a Civil Court until the Court is satisfied that he holds a valid registration certificate. Since a point on limitation was also raised the Court of appeal framed the following additional issues : 1. Whether the suit is within limitation ? 2. Whether legal representatives of Ratti Ram deceased had valid licence for proceeding with the suit. If not, what is its effect ? and disposed of the appeal on 17th February 1961 with these observations : The judgment and decree of the trial Court are reversed, and the same is remitted to the Court of Shri Sadhu Ram Goel, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nirwana for fresh decision on all the issues under Order 41, Rule 23 -A, C.P.C. and section 151, C. P. C, and he should give an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence in support and against the above issues. The evidence together with his finding and the reasons therefore be sent to this Court. The trial Court recorded its report on 18th December 1961 and directed the parties to appear before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on 29th December 1961.
(3.) IT appears that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge) drew the attention of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge that his order dated 17th February, 1961 was not quite correct because after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 23 -A, he could not call for a report from the trial Court with its findings on the additional issues. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge thereupon on 2nd March, 1962 passed an order observing that in fact the case had been remanded under Order 41, Rule 25, C.P.C. and the findings of the Court were only required on the Additional issues and that Order 41, Rule 23 -A had been mentioned through inadvertence and also that the judgment and decree of the trial Court had been wrongly reversed. As the trial Court had already returned its findings on the additional issues, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge merely directed that in his earlier order the words "the judgment and decree of the trial Court are reversed" be deleted and instead of Order 41 Rule 23 -A, C.P.C. the words "Order 41, Rule '2.5, C.P.C." be substituted. After receiving the remand report, Shri Mohinder Singh, Senior Subordinate Judge, then finally allowed the appeal by deciding additional issue No. 2 against the plaintiffs on the ground that at the time of the passing of the decree by the trial Court on 13th October 1960, the plaintiffs (legal representatives of Ratti Ram) did not possess a valid registration certificate as a money -lender. It may be stated that -on the first additional issue relating to limitation both the trial Court and the learned Senior Subordinate Judge gave a decision in favour of the plaintiffs.;