A second registration certificate granted during the currency of the first certificate is not an amendment of the first but an independent certificate valid for five years from the date of its grant.

JUDGMENT :

Misra, J. - Plaintiff's suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,448/ - from Defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of a promissory note (ext. 1) executed by Defendant No. 1 on 10-6-1957. Defendant No. 1 admitted execution, but denied receipt of consideration. His defence is that he received some old gold ornaments from the Plaintiff for making new ornaments. Gold being of considerable value, Plaintiff took the suit pro-note by way of security. He prepared the ornaments and returned the same within two months. Despite repeated requests, Plaintiff did not return the promissory note. The maintainability of the suit was attacked the ground that on the date of the loan, Plaintiff had no' money-lending licence, though he was registered money-lender. Defendant No. 2's liability was denied.

2. Both the Courts concurrently found that the promissory note is genuine, for consideration and was not given by way of security and that Defendant No. 2 was not liable. These findings were not assailed by Mr. Sinha for the Respondents. The suit was however dismissed on the ground that on the date of the suit loan, Plaintiff had no licence, though he was a money lender in regular course of business.

3. The relevant facts as to why Plaintiff is said to have no money-lending licence on the date of the advancement of the loan may be stated. Plaintiff obtained a registration certificate on 14-4-1952 for the maximum capital of Rs. 9,999/ -. On 23-5-1955, he obtained another registration certificate for the maximum capital of Rs. 60,000/ -. The registration fee payable under Rule 4 of the Rules framed u/s 2 and of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and the Rules) for the maximum capital of Rs. 9,999/ - is Rs. 12/8/ -, and for Rs. 20,000/ - and over is Rs. 25/ -. Out of the fee of Rs. 25/ - payable for the registration certificate dated 23-5-1955, Rs. 12/8/ - was paid in cash and, credit was given to the registration certificate fee of Rs. 12/8/already paid by the Plaintiff for the first registration certificate dated 14-4-1952. The suit loan was advanced on 10-6-1957 which is after the expiry of five years from the date of the first registration certificate.

4. On the aforesaid facts, the controversy between the parties may be stated. Plaintiff contends that the second registration certificate dated 23-5-1955 granted u/s 5 of the Act was in force for five years from the date on which it was granted. The suit loan having been advanced during this period, Plaintiff had a valid registration certificate and the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. The argument on behalf of Defendant No. l is that the second registration certificate and that the life of the second certificate is co-extensive with the first and must expire on 14-4-1957. After that date, he being a money-lender in regular course of business the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Act. The rival contentions require close examination.

5. The main plank of the Respondents' argument is Bholanath Ganapat Ray Firm v. Gopinath Agarwalla and Ors. ILR 1961 Cutt. 21 This decision was followed in Kontaru Naiko and Ors. v. Madhusudano Mollana ILR Cutt. 444, which has been reversed in Madhusudano Mollana v. Kontaru Naiko and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 1129 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Orissa case). In none of these cases, however, the question whether the second certificate of higher denomination granted during the currency of the first certificate amounts to an amendment of the first and not an independent certificate to be valid for five years from that date was considered.

6. Sant Saran Lal and Anr. v. Parsuram Sahu alias Kishan Lal Sahu and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 1117, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bihar case) arose under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. In the Orissa case, their Lordships observed that the relevant provisions of he Bihar Money-Lender Act 1938 and the Bihar(Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1938 are practically similar to the relevant provisions of the Orissa Act an