S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is a defendants revision against the order dated January 15, 1977 of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Civil Judge has ordered for striking out para 3 and para 2 of the Additional pleas of the written statement. It may be stated that the learned Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff-non-petitioners application under O. VIII, r. 9, C.P.C. and allowed the application under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. The plaintiff has not challenged the order dismissing his application under O. VIII, r. 9, C.P.C. The defendant has challenged that part of the order dated January 15, 1977, by which the applica-tion of the plaintiff under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. was allowed.

2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 6,000/- against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of a promissory note dated March 13,1963. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the pronote after borrowing Rs. 3000/-. In para 3 of the written statement, the defendant raised a plea that the plaintiff is Benamidar and that his (plaintiffs) father Madanlal used to do money lending business in the name of the members of his family. It was also stated in para 3 that as the plaintiff was Benamidar and as he had not taken the money lending licence, he cannot institute the suit. In para 2 of the additional pleas, it was stated that defendant had several money dealings with the plaintiffs father and that by a registered letter, which was sent to him (plaintiffs father) on January 2, 1974, he asked for the accounts of the past dealings, to which he did not reply. It was also averred in para 2 of the additional pleas that neither any amount by way of principal or interest is due from him nor from any member of his family. On behalf of the plaintiff, an application under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. was filed on August 7, 1966 for striking out para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement. This application was resisted on behalf of the defendant by filing a reply dated September 4, 1976. The learned Civil Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the application under O. VI, r. 16. C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff and ordered that para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement may be struck out on the ground that incorporation of para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement will prejudice, embarrass and delay the trial of the suit. To quote the learned Civil Judge :

^^gekjs fopkj ls bu nksuksa [kUMksa esa vafdr rF; ekeys esa lqlafxr ugha gS vkSj os gekjs fopkj ls bl izdkj ds rF; gS fd ftu ds bl okn ds fopkj.k esa vuko;d :i ls :dkoV o ck/kk dk vo/kku gksxkA**

The defendant has filed this revision questioning the order dated January 15, 1977 of the learned Civil Judge, by which he allowed the plaintiffs application under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. as aforesaid.

3. I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.L. Maheshwari for the non-petitioner and have carefully perused the plaint and the written statement.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Civil Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or at any rate with material irregularity when he ordered for deletion of para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement, for, conditions under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. are not satisfied. He submitted that the sum and substance of the pleas raised in para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas is that the suit is not maintainable for want of money lending licence and that the defendant is not liable for the suit money for the reasons mentioned therein. Reliance was placed on Raghu Nath vs. Radha Kishan (1) and Bhagirath vs. Gulab Kanwar (2).

5. Mr. R.L. Maheshwari learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported the order of the learned Civil Judge allowing the application under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. He referred to the provisions of S. 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (No.XXVI of 1881) (for short the Act); Sivaguru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document