The court's decision emphasized the applicability of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 and the validity of interest payment in the context of a recovery suit.

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) SMT. Indu Rani Jain filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,00,350/- with interest @ 15% p. a pendentelite and future with costs of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1. 10. 03 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Delhi who have passed a decree of rs. 2,97,050/- with interest @ 15% p. a. The defendants in the suit have challenged the correctness of the decree before this Court in the present regular First Appeal.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the respondent in the appeal, the appellant were carrying on the business of gold and diamond Jewellery under the name and style of M/s arihant Jewels, Delhi. Appellant no. 1 is the propereitor of appellant no. 2. The respondent had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,95000/- to the appellant on 28. 7. 99. The loan was agreed to be returned and repaid with interest @ 15% p. a. The loan was not returned despite repeated requests and reminders. The respondent filed a suit for recovery with the following details: " The break up of the amount claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants given in para 2 of the plaint is as under :-

( 3 ) APPELLANT contested the said suit. He took up the plea that the suit was barred by time and was also not maintainable in view of Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, 1934. Besides taking these objections of law even in relation to jurisdiction of the Court, it was stated that the loan of Rs. 1,95,000/- was taken but liability to repay the same was denied on the ground that the respondent had taken Jewellery to the tune of Rs. 2,30,785/- vide the bill dated 11. 10. 2000 on which even the Sales Tax was paid by the appellant as such nothing was payable to the respondent, in fact, a sum of Rs. 15,911/- was due on the respondent. Keeping in view the above pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues on 27. 3. 03:"i)Whether the present suit is barred by time? OPD ii)Whether this suit is barred under the provisions of the Punjab relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 as alleged in para-4 of preliminary objections in W. S. ? OPD iii) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount in view of facts alleged in para 5 of the preliminary objections of the W. S. ? OPD. iv) Relief. "

( 4 ) AS already noticed, the Trial Court after discussing the evidence led by the parties, documentary and oral, answered the issues in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. It may be noticed that the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit had only examined themselves and has produced and proved on record certain documents. The Trial Court while recording findings on issue No. 2 against the appellant held as under:"the plea of the defendants that the present suit is barred under the provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. According to the defendants the plaintiff is a money lender and she has not obtained the requisite license to work as a money lender. To substantiate their said objections, DW-1 Naresh Jain who is the sole proprietor of defendant no. 2 firm has deposed in para 2 of his affidavit Ex. D-1 as follows: "the plaintiff is a money lender lending lending money to various persons on interest. To my knowledge, the plaintiff has not obtained any license to act as a money lender which I have been told is necessary. On 28th July, 1999 the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- to me in the name of defendant no. 2 which was repayable with interest @ 15% p. a. Interest for the period upto 31st march, 2000 accrued to the tune of Rs. 19,874/ -. Thus the total amount due to the plaintiff on 1st April, 2000 was Rs. 2,,14,874/ -. ""however, DW-1 Naresh Jain could not withstand the test of cross- examination with regard to the above mentioned testimony on the point of his objection under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act DW-1 could not tell the name of any other person to whom the plaintiff might had given money on loan. He has testified that he knows the plaintiff for last 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document