RAM SUNDAR MANDAL Vs. CHAMAN MANDAL
LAWS(PAT)-1979-12-10
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on December 17,1979

RAM SUNDAR MANDAL Appellant
VERSUS
CHAMAN MANDAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WRIGHT V. HALE [REFERRED TO]
KNIGHT V. LEE. [REFERRED TO]
SMITHIES V. NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATIVE PLASTERS [REFERRED TO]
HENSHALL V. PORTER [REFERRED TO]
COLONIAL SUGAR REFINERY CO. V. IRVING [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF ATHENES SOCIETY ANONYME V. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE [REFERRED TO]
MOON V. DURDEN [REFERRED TO]
GARDINER V. LUCAS [REFERRED TO]
GOKARAN,PRASAD SINGH V. MALIK WADS ALI [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR RAMESHWAR VS. JOT RAM:JOT RAM [REFERRED TO]
MECHELEC ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS VS. BASIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMIR SINGH V,CIT [REFERRED TO]
SHIYA JANKI THAKURAIN VS. KIRTANAND SINGH BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. - (1.)The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for money on the allegation that the defendant, as karta of his joint family, had taken a loan of Rs. 2190 from him on the basis of a promissory note. The defendant denied the liability and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 7 (5) of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both the Courts have examined the evicence led in the case and have concurrently held that the plaintiff's claim on merits is correct and the defendant is liable for the amount mentioned in the promissory note with interest at Re. 1 per centum per mensem. They have, however, accepted the defence that the suit is hit by the provisions of Sec. 7 (5) of the Act, and since the relevant extract from a register enjoined by the Act to be maintained has not been produced in the suit, the claim cannot be decreed. The suit has been accordingly dismissed. Since the total claim in the suit is less than Rs. 3,000, a second appeal is barred under Sec. 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present application in revision challenging the decision of the courts below.
(2.)Mr. Kailash Roy, appearing in support of this application, has contended that since the suit was filed in the year 1973, that is, before the enactment of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974, and the provisions of the Act are not retrospective in operation, Sec. 7 (5) of the Act has no application to the present suit whatsoever. It is, therefore, suggested that in view of the concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff, which is binding on the High Court, the suit is fit to be decreed.
(3.)The defendant has not appeared in this case but Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha, learned Advocate through whom the defendant in a similar suit has filed a second appeal which has been numbered as S. A. 52 of 1979 has intervened and has assisted the Court by his argument presenting the opposite point of view.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.