DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:-

The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant instituted a suit in the Civil Court being Special Civil Suit No. 74/2001. The suit was filed with following prayers.

"(a) This Hon. Court be pleased to order the defendant No.1 to hand over, to the plaintiff.

the vacant possession of the said flats Nos. S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-4 in Block-A, on the second floor of the said building known as "Deekay Plaza" on the property Surveyed under No. 205, Sub-Division, No.3, situated at Calangute, Bardez, Goa, after evicting the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 there from, in accordance with an agreement dated 22.8.1998 executed. by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 or in the alternative (a) This Hon. Court be pleased to order the defendants jointly and/or severally to pay the sum of Rs. 23,10,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs ten thousand only), Rs. 15,00,000/being the principal sum and Rs. 8,10,000/being the interest up to the date of filing of the present suit, together with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the present suit.

(b) This Hon. Court be pleased to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants relatives etc. from interfering in any way with the said fiats Nos. S-1, 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4 or from transferring, conveying, damaging or encumbering the same in any manner;

(c) Costs may please be granted to the plaintiff;

(d) This Hon. Court be pleased to grant the reliefs as may become necessary to the plaintiff.

2. It appears that the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statement on 6.12.2001 and issues were drawn on the basis of the pleadings on 15.6.2002. Thereafter, affidav.it evidence of the plaintiff was also led. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Exh. 23) for rejection of the plaint by invoking powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The gist of the pleas raised is that the defendant No. 1 availed various loans from the original plaintiff. The Affidavit evidence shows as to how the loans were advanced. Prayer Clause (a) speaks about the recovery of amount of Rs. 23,10,000/- together with further interest at the rate of 18 %. In such circumstances, it is evident that the plaintiff carries on business of money lending. In View of section 14 of Goa Money Lenders' Act, there is a bar and unless the money lender holds a valid licence, he cannot come before a Court of Law and seek recoveries of monies lent. In such circumstances and unless the requirement of that Statute is satisfied, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit, therefore, be dismissed.

4. It appears that no reply was filed by the appellant original plaintiff to this application, but the contention raised orally was that the plaintiffs allegations must be seen as a whole. Read as a whole, the suit is nothing but one pleading specific performance of an Agreement to sell of immovable property, which is in writing and executed on 22.8.1998. All transactions of lending and advancing monies prior thereto are not relevant and germane and claim for specific performance or in the alternative for damages, must be adjudicated in accordance with law.

5. Based upon these pleas, the application claimed to be argued and the learned Judge has by the impugned judgment and order concluded that the plaintiff is not holding a valid money lending licence. Therefore, the claim in the suit may be for specific performance of an agreement dated 22.8.98, but it is essentially a money suit. The plaintiff being a money-lender and the statutory compliance not being set out, the suit must be dismissed. That is how, the application is allowed and the plains rejected.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff is in Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2003 rejecting his plaint.

7. We have heard Shri J.E. Coelho Perriera, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff, Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document