G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal in a civil suit which has been dismissed by both the courts below on the precise ground of non -compliance of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1968.
(2.) MR . Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 26(b) of the Money Lenders Act as amended in 1976 cannot be applied to the case, which was already pending. According to him, this will be giving retrospective operation which cannot be given, because it would result in divesting him of the vested rights in a decree in a civil suit. Mr. Rastogi's contention is that the rights of the parties should be decided in accordance with law on the date of filing of the civil suit and not according to law which comes into force later on. This point has precisely been considered by this court in Kanhiyalal v. Srilal (1980 Raj LW 301), in which the learned Judge of this Court observed as under : - - 'Rajasthan Money Lenders Act - - As introduced by amending Act, Section 26 (b) - -Whether retrospective suit, in amended Section 26 (b) of the Act, embraces within its ambit even the pending suits. It can, therefore, be said, that keeping in view the 'purpose or object' or the 'reasons and spirit' of the Act, the provisions of Section 26 (b) of the Act as they stand after the amendment by the amending Act of 1976, will apply to pending suits also and if Sections 22 and 23 have not been complied with, then the court has to dismiss the suit.' Again, another Judge of this Court took the same view in Ranchordas v. Matookchand, (1980 WLN 580) : (AIR 1981 NOC 72). The learned Judge observed as under: - - 'The intention of the legislature has been clearly and undoubtedly expressed that the amended Section 26 (b) is to apply to the pending suits. It is enjoined that the Court shall dismiss the whole suit where it finds that the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act have not been complied with by the Money -lender, in respect of the whole claim.'
(3.) WHILE doing so in Ranchordas's case, the learned Judge extracted the statement of objects and reasons of the amendment. Reliance was placed on another judgment of this Court in Kishan Pyari v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (1077 Raj LW 77): (AIR 1978 Raj 9) in Ranchordas's case. The learned Judge was of the view that the law is well settled and it is not necessary to quote any authority on this point.;