Non-compliance with statutory provisions and inaction by the Plaintiff can lead to the dismissal of an application for revival of a suit.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, C.J. - The Plaintiff of Money Suit No. 241 of 1976 who lodged a claim for recovery of Rs. 1400/- based on a promissory note dated 11-2-1973 is the Petitioner challenging an order directing abatement of his suit for non-compliance of the provision of Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The suit was filed on 10-8-1976, some time after the amendment came into the Statute. The trial Court granted specific adjournments to the Plaintiff to comply with the mandate of Section 18-B of the Act. After two such adjournments, the suit stood posted to 4-4-1977 when the following order was made:

The Plaintiff and Defendant file separate haziras, but the Plaintiff does not file the required certificate u/s 18-B of the amended Orissa Money Lenders Act. The Plaintiff is absent on call. The suit stands abated u/s 18-B(1) of the Orissa Money Lenders Act for want of the certificate u/s 18-B.

The order for abatement must be assumed to have been u/s 18-B(8) of the Act though erroneously referred to in the order-sheet as 'Sub-section (7).'

2. An application was made for revival of the suit by filing it on 1-5-1978, i.e. about 13 months after the order of abatement. The certificate is dated 30-3-1978. No explanation has been furnished as to why for more than a month after thee certificate had been obtained steps for revival were not taken. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the same did not lie.

3. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Sinha that the application was maintainable and the trial Court should have, therefore, examined the merit of the matter. Instead of remanding the matter for a consideration on merit, I myself looked into it. These are the features which lead me to hold that the application should not be entertained:

The notification u/s 18-B of the Act issued by the State Government is dated 9th July, 1976, i.e. more than a month before the institution of the suit. The appropriate officer to grant the certificate was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Puri in terms of Entry No. 73 in the notification. The suit was filed without the requisite certificate. Specific adjournments were granted to produce the certificate. While adjournments were being taken in the suit, no action was taken to make the application to the Competent authority and as admitted in the application for revival of the suit, the application for the certificate was made after the abatement of the suit. The Plaintiff's conduct does not justify any indulgence to be shown to him. The certificate was obtained on 30th March, 1978. The Plaintiff knew that the suit had already been declared to have abated. Without loss of any time the application for revival should have been made. There is a delay of more than one month in making the application and no explanation has been furnished as to why there was such a delay. On the basis of the conduct exhibited by the Plaintiff, which is mainly inaction and indifference to the requirements of law, I do not think, the inherent power can be exercised in his favour. The application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Final Result : Dismissed