The period spent in obtaining a certificate under Section 18-B of the Money-Lenders Act cannot be excluded from the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of loan.

JUDGMENT :

Agrawal, C.J. - This application has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single judge of this Court for an authoritative decision of the question as to whether the period during which the proceeding u/s 18-8 (inserted by the amending Act 54 of 1975) of the Orissa Money- Lenders Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act'),was pending before the appropriate authority should be, excluded from the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of loan.

2. The petitioner is a registered money-lender under the Act. On 11-4-1975 he had granted a loan of Ks. 800/- to the opposite party under a handnote. On 12-1-1977 he filed an application before the Subdivisional Officer, Puri, for grant of a certificate u/s 18-B of the Act. According to the provisions of Section 18-B, the State Government may by a notification require the money-lenders carrying on business in any local area to produce before the prescribed authority all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans with a view to determine if the transactions exceeded the amount for which the money-lender had obtained the registration certificate and then to pass an order declaring the particulars of the transactions that are within the amounts as specified in the said certificate The certificate in the above proceeding was granted to the petitioner by the Subdivisional Officer on 27-11-1978 declaring the transaction in question within the specified limit. On the very next day, i.e, 28-11-1978, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, against the opposite parties for recovery of the loan.

3. One of the pleas taken by the opposite parties was that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. Although the trial Court decided all the other issues in favour of the petitioner including the genuineness of the handnote, it dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.

The petitioner, having failed in the lower appellate Court also, has filed the present revision application.

5. The petitioner claims exclusion from the period of limitation for filing the suit of the time which was spent in obtaining the certificate from the Subdivisional Officer u/s 18-B on the basis of Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, which reads as follows :

"In computing the period of, limitation for any suit of which notice has been . given, or for which the previous consent or sanction required, in accordance with the requirements of any law for the time being in force, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded."

6. Apparently, in Sub-section (2), a provision is made for excluding only that time which is taken for obtaining the consent of the Central Government or any other authority for instituting any proceeding, such as, Under Sections 86 and 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Undisputedly, no such consent is required for a money-lender for instituting a suit- But the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a reference to Sub-section (8) of Section 18-B which reads as follows :

"No Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any loan advanced prior to the date of the order referred to in Sub-section

(2) unless the particulars thereof are contained in the said order and all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated."

submitted that since the Court could not have entertained the claim in respect of the loan in question, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to wait till an order under Sub-section (2) was passed regarding the handnote in question. He also referred to Rule 11 of Order 7, Civil Procedure Code, in this connection and submitted that the plaint was bound to be rejected in the absence of the relevant order passed u/s 18-B(2).

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the application for grant of the required certificate under the Money-Lenders Act.

8. The learned counse