RANCHOREDASS Vs. MALOOKCHAND
LAWS(RAJ)-1980-9-21
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 03,1980

Ranchoredass Appellant
VERSUS
Malookchand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.N.DEEDWANIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision is preferred by defendant -petitioner Ranchoredass against the judgment and decree, dated February 5, 1977 of learned Civil Judge, Barmer.
(2.) THE necessary facts may thus briefly be stated. That the non -petitioner -plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1400/ - in the court of Munsif, Balotra with the allegations that the defendant -petitioner took a loan of Rs. 1000/ - from him on 11 -9 -71 and executed a pronote for the same. The suit was filed on 24 -9 -74 and the defendant -petitioner took an objection that no decree could be passed against him in view of breach of Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In view of the amended Section 26 of the Act, the trial court held that the suit has to be dismissed, because the non -petitioner -plaintiff failed to comply with the provision of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and consequently, dismissed the suit on 29 -6 -76. The case was taken up in appeal and the learned first appellate court was of the view that the amended Section 26 of the Act did not apply to the suits, which have been filed before it was amended. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and persued the record of the case carefully.
(3.) IT appears that Section 26 of the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1976 on 13 -2 -76 and before, this section stood amended in identical terms by the Rajasthan Money Lenders (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. Amongst others, Sections 11 and 26 were amended. At this stage, I shall read the amended and un -amended those sections of the Act before amendment. Section 11 of the Act was to the following effect: Section 11. -Stay of suits by money -lenders not holding licence: (1) After the expiry of six months from the date on which this Act comes into force no court shall pass a decree in favour of a money -lender in any suit filed by a money -lender to which this Act applies unless the court is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced the money -lender held a valid licence. (2) If during the trial of any such suit a court finds that the money -lender had not held such licence, the court may, on the application of the money -lender, stay the hearing of the suit and require him to produce within a period of three months a licence on payment to the Registrar of all arrears of the licence fees payable by him under this Act for the period commencing from the date on which he started the business of money -lending or the expiry of six months from the date on which this Act comes into force, which ever is later, together with such penalty, not exceeding five hundred rupees, as the court may direct and if such court is that of a Nyaya Panchayat, such penalty shall not exceed fifty rupees. Provided that when the court is satisfied that the failure of the money -lender to obtain a licence was due to any reasonable cause, the court may direct that no penalty as aforesaid or part of such penalty shall be paid by the money -lender. (3) The court may, on sufficient cause being shown from time to time, extend the period during which the money -lender shall be required to produce a licence. (4) If the money -lender fails to produce the licence required under Sub -section (2) within the period specified therein or within such period as may be extended under Sub -section (3), the court shall dismiss the suit. If the money -lender produces such licence within the aforesaid period, the court shall proceed to hear the suit. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect - (a) suit in respect of loans advanced by a money -lender before the date on which this Act comes into force; (b) the powers of the Court of Wards or an Official Assignee or a receiver or an administrator or a court under the law relating to insolvency for the time being in force or a liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) to realise the property of a money -lender. Amended Section 11: 'Section 11. Dismissal of suit by money -lender not holding licence: (1) where a suit to which this Act applies is filed by a money -lender and the court in which it is filed is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced, the money -lender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit forthwith without going into the merits of the claim and shall order the merits of the claim and shall order the refund of the security, if any, without repayment of the loan. (2) Nothing in this section shall affect - (a) suits pending in any court on the date of the commencement of the Rajasthan Money -lenders (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, which may be disposed of according to the law existing immediately before such commencement; (b) suits in respect of loans advanced by a money -lender before the date on which this Act came into force; and (c) the powers of the court of Wards or an Official Assignee or a receiver or an administrator or a court under the law relating to insolvency for the time being in force or a liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956), to realise the property of moneylender. The un -amended Section 26(b) and amended Section 26(b) of the Act are as follows: Section 26(b). If the court finds that the provisions of Section 22 and Section 23 have not been complied with by the money -lender it may, if the plaintiffs claim is established in whole or in part, disallow the whole or any portion of the interest found due, as may seem reasonable to it in the circumstances of the case and may dis -allow costs. Amended Section 26(b): Section 26(b). If the court finds that the provisions of Section 22 and Section 23 have not been complied with by the money -lender in respect of the whole or any part of the claim, it shall dismiss: (i) the whole suit with costs where such contravention has been in respect of entire claim in the suit; or (ii) so much of the claim with costs proportionate thereto in respect of which the said provisions have not been complied with by the moneylender. ;


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