The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939, which requires the regular business of money-lending to be proved for its applicability.

JUDGMENT :

Panigrahi, C.J. - The Plaintiff in a small cause suit is the Petitioner before me. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 400/- on a hand note alleged to have been executed by Defendant 1; and Defendants 2 and 3 being his nephews were impleaded as being liable for discharging the debt as a family loan. Defendant 4 is the mother. Defendants 2 to 4 pleaded that they were living separately and that they were not liable for the suit-loan contracted by Defendant 1. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld this plea and dismissed the suit as against Defendants 2 to 4. He also directed dismissal of the suit against Defendant 1 on the ground that the Plaintiff had not got himself registered u/s 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939, even within the time allowed by the proviso to Section 8, and consequently is debarred from instituting the suit. Section 8 says that: A money-lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the date on which this section comes into force unless he was registered under this Act at the time when such loan was advanced.

2. The proviso enables such a money-lender to institute a suit at any time in the course of a year after the date on which the section came into force, provided that he obtains a certificate of registration u/s 5 at any time before the expiry of the year. Section 8 came into force on the 1st April 1950 by Notification No. 1347 D. of the 7th February 1950. The suit loan was advanced on the 11th April 1950, a short time after Section 8 came into force and admittedly the suit was not instituted in the course of a year from that date. It is also admitted that the Plaintiff did not get himself registered as a money-lender. But the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Plaintiff cannot be regarded as a money-lender within the meaning of Section 8, and that section has no application to him, unless it is established by the Defendants that he satisfies the requirements of the definition section. Section 2(j) of the Act defines 'money-lender' while has undergone some amendment in 1947. The amended definition says:

In Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19, a person who advances a loan in the regular course of business of money-lending.

3. It is therefore, clear that a mere advance of loan does not constitute 'money-lending' within the meaning of Section 8. It must further be proved that he carries on business of money-lending regularly. There is no evidence on either side that the Petitioner has any regular money-lending business. I must, therefore, hold that Section 8 does not apply to the facts of this case, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree against Defendant 1. His petition against Defendants 2 to 4 is dismissed with costs. He will have a decree against Defendant 1 with costs of the suit. The Petitioner shall pay the costs of the opposite parties 2 to 4 who appear in this Court.

Hearing fee Rs. 35/-.