FAROOQ HASAN, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 14.12.79 passed by District Judge, Tonk (first appellate court) affirming the judgment & decree dated 30.8.70 passed by the Civil Judge Tonk (trial court) in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff appellants filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5000/- against the defendant, with Rs. 3,500/- on 16.2.73 on interest at Rs. 1/- per cent per month from plaintiff No 2, partner of the firm-plaintiff a pro-note and receipt for the same is also alleged to have been executed by the defendant Besides this, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3500/- on the basis of another pro-note & receipt from the plaintiff firm on 8.8.74.

3. The defendant in his written statement admitted to have borrowed the money but the amount of loan was shown different by the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff appellants are money lenders within the definition of Section 2(10) of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (for brevity, the Act, 1963), and that, the plaintiffs are not having any licence and since they have also not complied with the provisions contained in section 22 & 23 of the Act, 1963, according to the defendant respondent, the suit is not maintainable.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues including issue of relief. In view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, 1963, the trial court only gave its finding on issue No. 6 & 7 and it was found by the trial court that the plaintiffs are money lenders and have got no licence under the Act, 1963 and have failed to comply with the provisions of Section 22 & 23 of the Act, 1963, and ultimately the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed without deciding other issues. On an appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate court while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence this second appeal.

5. I have heard Shri P. D. Mathur for the plaintiffs and Shri S. M. Ali for the respondents defendants, and have gone through the record.

6. Before I consider the rival contentions of the parties, it would be proper to quote the issues Nos. 6 & 7 framed by the trial court hereunder:

"6. Whether the plaintiffs are money lenders with respect to this loan?

7. If the issue No. 6 is decided in the affirmative, then whether the plaintiffs have a valid licence for money lending and have complied with the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act to what effect?"

7. Shri Mathur on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the subordinate courts fell in error in deciding the issues No. 6 and 7 against the plaintiffs appellants. Learned counsel merely advanced his arguments with regard to section 26 of the Act, and submitted that the plaintiff appellants filed an application before the trial court under Section 11(2) of the Act which has now been amended by the Amendment Act (Rajasthan Act No. 13 of 1975) published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part IV-A (Extraordinary) dated 13.2.1976 (pp 181 to 185) but, the trial court wrongly dismissed this application.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were having licence under the Act, 1963 but the same was submitted in original to the registry for its renewal. The licences are filed before this court with an application under O. 41.R.27 CPC praying therein that he documents (licences) may be taken on record.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that in the instant case, the plaintiff appellants failed to comply with the provisions of sections 11 and 26 of the Act, 1963 and the suit on the plaintiff appellants has been dismissed because of the reasons that the plaintiffs appellants failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, 1963.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention of the parties.

11. Looking to the provisions contained in Sections 11

Click Here to Read the rest of this document