Carrying on money lending business without the required license under the Punjab Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 barred the suit under Section 3 of the Act.

SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal by the defendant is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,28,000/- [Principal sum- Rs. 4,00,000/- and interest Rs. 1,28,000/-] filed by plaintiffs [respondents herein]. The Court of first Instance vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2012 decreed the suit and the appeal filed by Mewa Singh, defendant was dismissed by learned District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

3. Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,28,000/- [Principal sum- Rs. 4,00,000/- and interest Rs. 1,28,000/-] on the basis of pronote, receipt and accounts book. As per the plaintiffs, the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be repaid along with interest @ 2% per month from the plaintiffs on 14.05.2008 and had executed a pronote and receipt and affixed his signatures/thumb impressions on the revenue stamps after accepting its correctness. The entry in this regard was recorded in the account books of the plaintiff-firm. The defendant was requested for re-payment on different dates and a legal notice was served, but repayment was made and as such, necessity of the suit.

4. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had been carrying on the business of Commission agent and used to give loans to the people without having any money lending license. Plaintiff firm is maintaining forged books of accounts. The defendant never took any loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.5.2008 nor he executed any such document i.e. Pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiffs and the same are forged documents. In fact, the defendant is an agriculturist and used to sell his crops at the shop of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to obtain his signatures/thumb impressions in his bahi and blank papers. However, in the year 2000, the defendant stopped selling his cross on the plaintiff firm and because of that, the plaintiffs started forging the transactions. Taking undue advantage of the blank signed documents, the plaintiff got prepared pronote and receipt and the same are not binding upon the defendant and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of principal sum of Rs. 5,28,000/- with pendent-ilite and future interest? OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are money lender without licence? OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

4. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether plaintiffs have suppressed material and true facts? OPD

6. Relief."

6. Parties led their respective evidence and after appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, the Court of first instance decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The appeal filed by the defendant before the Court of first Appeal was dismissed. As such, the present Regular Second Appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that it is case of the defendant, right from the beginning that the plaintiff-firm was carrying on the business of money lending without having any licence under the Punjab Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 [for short, "the Act"] and as such, the present suit for recovery is legally not maintainable. Even issue No.2 was framed on this point and the Court of first instance simply mentioned that Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not pressed at the time of arguments, though this plea was raised before the Court of first instance. Even the first appellate Court has not recorded any finding on this issue point which resulted into erroneous findings.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it