The Court established the genuineness of the pronote and receipt, and clarified the requirements for a money lending license under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938.

T.P.S. Mann, J. - Defendant-Balvinder Singh has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal of plaintiff-M/s. Basaikhi Ram Saina Ram was accepted and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 14,000/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the entire decretal amount was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-firm through its partner Brij Lal claiming therein that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- on 28.5.1977 from it on interest at the rate of Rs. 1.56 per hundred per mensum and in consideration thereof, executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the firm. Although, an amount of Rs. 5,054/- was due towards interest yet plaintiff-firm claimed interest only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. As the defendant failed to pay the borrowed amount along with the interest, the plaintiff-firm had no other option but to file the suit.

3. While opposing the suit, the defendant pleaded that the pronote and receipt in question were forged and fabricated documents and therefore, no liability could be enforced against him on the basis of the same. According to him, he sold his tractor on 5.6.1979 for a sum of Rs. 9,400/-. On learning this, aforementioned Brij Lal, partner of the plaintiff-firm, approached the defendant to clear all the outstanding dues. The account was settled and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to Brij Lal. However, Brij Lal did not issue him the receipt, but promised to return the pronote to the defendant which he had executed in favour of the plaintiff-firm for an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. Said Brij Lal also did not return the pronote and the receipt. In fact, he had never borrowed the alleged amount of Rs. 9,000/-. The plaintiff- firm had forged the pronote, which the defendant had executed in its favour only in consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. Even after receiving the entire amount, the plaintiff-firm, after basing its claim on forged documents, filed the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff-firm was not a registered partnership firm. It was indulging in the business of money lending without obtaining requisite licence. Therefore, the suit deserved to be dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs firm is registered firm and Brij Lal is its registered partner ? OPP

2. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs. 9,000/- from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint ? OPP

3. Whether in token of the loan the defendant had executed any pronote or receipt ? OPP

4. Whether the defendant agreed to pay any interest, if so, to what rate and how much ? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender ? OPD

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs ? OPD

7. Relief.

The trial Court came to a conclusion that the pronote and receipt were not duly proved by the plaintiff as it failed to establish that it advanced a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the defendant on interest. It was also held that the plaintiff firm was a money lender within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (for short the Act) and as it had not taken the requisite licence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dabwali on February 28, 1984.

5. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff firm filed an appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa on November 20, 1984 by concluding that from the testimonies of Ramesh Kumar PW-2 and Baldev Singh PW-3, who were scribe and attesting witness, respectively, of the pronote and receipt, the plaintiff firm had been able to establish that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant after receiving a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in cash from the p