Failure to comply with Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, which requires money-lenders to supply information regarding the maximum capital invested in the lending business, can lead to the dismissal of a suit filed by the money-lender.

JUDGMENT :

Narasimham, C.J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the Small Causes Courts Judge, Balasore, dismissing the Petitioner-Plaintiff?s suit for recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of a hand-note. The Plaintiff stated that he was not a professional money-lender but as Defendant No. 1 happened to be his Mahaprasad friend, he advanced him a loan of Rs. 200/- to enable her to buy a piece of land adjacent to her own. The loan was said to have been taken by her for the benefit of her minor sons also (Defendants 2, 3 and 4). As the money was not repaid the suit was brought for recovery of the loan together with interest. The Defendant however denied the taking of the loan but the learned Small Causes Court Judge held that the money was taken as a loan and that it was for the benefit of the minor sons of Defendant No. 1 also (after due execution of the hand-note by Defendant No. 1) but he dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that he failed to comply with Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules.

2. To appreciate this point it is necessary to refer to certain facts. During the cross-examination of the Plaintiff, on 21-9-1962 the following answers were elicited by the Defendant?s lawyer:

I know Defendant, No. 1 for the last 5 to 6 years only. At times she took rice loans from me at 1 seer or 1/2 seer for each time. This happened for 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years.

The Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 31-9-1962 and the evidence of Defendant No. 1 also was recorded on 2-11-1962. Then on 7-11-1962 the learned Small Causes Court Judge discussed the question as to whether there was contravention of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules and, if so, what further action should be taken by him. He wrote out a lengthy order almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross-examination". At the time she took rice loans from me at the rate of one seer or half seer for each time. This happened 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years. "This admission on the part of the Plaintiff that he was in the habit of advancing little loans to Defendant No. 1 attracts the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules. He has therefore to supply the information regarding the maximum capital invested in the lending business. But since the office did not point out that the Plaintiff should comply with Rule 12, the suit cannot be dismissed."

Then, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anirudha Behera and Another Vs. Dhanu Behera and Another, he called upon the Plaintiff to comply with Rule 12 within 10-11-1962. On 10-11-1962 the Plaintiff filed a petition (purporting to company with the aforesaid order) stating therein that he was not a money-lender and that apart from the suit loan he had no other money-lending transactions at the time of the suit. Defendant No. 1, however, objected to this amendment on the ground that it did not amount to sufficient compliance with the direction given by the Court by its order dated 7-11-1962 and on the other hand it changed the character of the pleading. Then on 25-1-1963 the learned Small Causes Court Judge wrote out a judgment and pointed out that on the admission of the Plaintiff himself in Cross-examination he had advanced small sums by way of rice loans to Defendant No. 1 and that as he failed to include these loans also in the maximum capital, though the Court gave him an opportunity for this purpose, the suit should be dismissed He relied on some observations in the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court which were also reiterated in a subsequent decision in Jugmast Banchhor and Anr. v. Mahatap Singh Jain 27 (1961) C.L.T. 439. In view of these two decisions there can be no doubt be taken by him. He wrote out a lengthy order-almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross. Examination." At the time she took rice loans from me