- (1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1980, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur, in a civil suit No. 98/1978 whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent.
(2.) At the very out set the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the plaintiff-respondent filed a money suit against the defendant- appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,160/-. The defendant-appellant filed written statement and in that written statement he took an objection that the plaintiff-respondent is a money- lender and is not having a money lending licence as required under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act.
(3.) The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings, framed issued No. 5 but the onus of proving of this issue was kept on the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court erred in laying the burden of proving on the defendant-appellant for issue No. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Hari Narain Tiwari v. Damodar Busar, 1987 2 RLR 59. In Hari Narain Tiwari's case this Court observed as under :- "Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money and an objection was raised in the written statement that the suit was barred under the provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act and therefore, the burden to prove that the suit for recovery of any loan in view of the restrictions placed by the Act, lies on the plaintiff and therefore, the burden for proving the issue should have been placed on the plaintiff and not on the defendant. When a person files a suit knowing fully well that a law has been enacted which provides bar for filing the suit, it is for the person who files suit that such bar is not applicable.";