JAGDISH SHARAN VERMA,C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of money from the defendant on the basis of promissory note alleging that the loan had been advanced to the defendant for purchase of some goods for his Kirana shop. The defendant denied the plaintiff's case and contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was a money -lender who had not complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 on account of which the suit was liable to be dismissed in its entirety according to Section 26 of the Act. The trial court decreed the suit but the defendant's appeal to the District Court succeeded and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this revision by the plaintiff because of Section 102, CPC.
(2.) THE appellate court has clearly held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963, apply. Plaintiff being a money lender who has not produced his licence and has also not complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the suit has been dismissed as provided in Section 26 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the loan was advanced to a trader, the defendant being a trader as defined in Clause 16 of Section 2, the transaction could not be treated as a loan for the purpose of the Act, in accordance with Section 2(9)(j )(i). The exception provided in Section 2(9)(j)(i) is in respect of a loan advanced to a trader. The question is whether this contention was erroneously repelled by the trial court. In my opinion, there is no foundation form the above argument advanced in support of this revision. There is no material to hold that the defendant is a trader as defined in Section 2(16) so as to attract the exception contained in Section 2(9)(j)(i) of the Act. A perusal of the statements of the plaintiff and defendant which is the only oral evidence in the case shows that this conclusion reached by the appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity. The appellate court has also relied on the plaintiff's admission in his statement that on the date of the execution of the promissory note, no cash was advanced to the defendant and the pronote was taken for the sum of Rs. 1,800/ - against dues under the earlier account. This admission of the plaintiff also belies his assertion of having advanced the loan in cash that day for purchase of some goods for the defendant's alleged shop. There is thus, no ground to interfere with this revision.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.;