The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for money lenders to hold a valid license under Section 11 of the Money Lenders Act, 1961, and the consequences of failing to produce the license during the trial.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against the Judgment and decree dated 21-8-80 passed by the lower Appellate Court. e. Civil Judge, Madhugiri in R. A. 154/78, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 27-10-75 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Madhugiri in O. S. 214/74, decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs and with interest.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant on receiving Rs. 1,450/- executed the suit document on 15 6-71 agreeing to pay interest at 1% per month. Notwithstanding repeated demands the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant contended, amongst other things, that the plaintiff is a money lender and he did not hold a money lending licence at any time and that, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. He also denied the execution of the document.

( 4 ) THE Munsiff, on scrutiny of the evidence, held that the defendant had executed the document on receiving Rs. 1,450/ -. But, however, he held that the plaintiff was a money lender and he did not possess a money lending licence and, therefore, he decreed the suit only for the principal amount. The defendant approached the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that the document in question amounted to a pronote and that as it was not stamped, it was liable to be dismissed. He also held that the plaintiff did not possess a valid money lending licence either at the time of the transaction or at the time of the filing of the suit. He dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Trial Court held it to be a bond and duty and penalty had been recovered from him. According to him, the defendant for the first time contended that the present document amounted to a pronote. According to him, once the document is admitted in evidence, it is not open to the defendant to raise the contention in the appellate Court that it amounted to a pronote. The question of admissibility or otherwise would depend upon so many factors. It is for the Court to find out whether it amounts to a bond or pronote. Even if the defendant admits that it is a bond, it would not relieve the Court from finding out whether it was a bond of a pronote. Admittedly, the document was not stamped therefore, the lower Appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit holding that the document amounted to a pronote and it was not sufficiently stamped.

( 6 ) THE next question is whether the plaintiff is a money lender. The plaintiff himself has admitted that he has lent money to more than 20 persons and from the various persons he had taken pronotes and he has filed a suit for recovery of more than Rs. 2,000/- from one of his debtors. Therefore, on his own admission, his transactions cover more than Rs. 3,000/ -. Therefore, on his own admission, the Courts below were right in holding that he was a money lender.

( 7 ) SRI Jagannath urged that even if he was a money lender under Section 11 of the original Act of 1961, the Court ought to have given time to obtain the licence. Section 11 (2) of the old Act says :

"11. Stay of suits by money lenders not holding licence : (2) If during the trial of any such suit, the 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 ail the arrears of the licence fee 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 corner into force, whichever is Inter, together with such penalty, not exceeding five hundred rupees as the Court may direct :

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 us aforesaid