A money-lender can recover a loan if they obtain a valid registration certificate during litigation, although not required at the time of the loan.

1. This is defendant's appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (briefly, 'the Code') against the judgment and decree dated 3-2-2009 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 5 - B / 2008 whereby and whereunder, the respondent's suit has been decreed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:
(i) There is no material point of fact which is now in dispute. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on 27-3-2008 by the respondent / plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- as principal, Rs. 99,000/- as interest and Rs. 1,000/- as notice expenses on the basis of promissory note dated 16-6-2005 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The loan carried interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
(ii) The plaintiff procured the money lending licence during the pendency of the suit which was valid from a date subsequent to the filing of the suit, had not maintained any account of the loan nor furnished to the appellant any statement of account in respect thereof are also not in dispute.
(iii) The appellant took a specific defence that the respondent / plaintiff is a money - lender doing money - lending business without licence; has not complied with the requirement of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of S.3(1) of the Act of 1934 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thus the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(iv) The trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced and material placed by the parties passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,50,000/- however declined to grant future interest and cost of the suit.

3. Shri Verma, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the decree on two grounds: first that as per S.11(H) of the Act, no suit for recovery of a loan advanced by money lender shall proceed in a civil Court until the Court is satisfied that he holds valid licence.

4. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff was not holding any valid licence on the date of transaction or on the date of filing of the suit. The licence was procured by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit which was valid from a date subsequent to the filing of the suit and, therefore, for the present transaction, it is not in conformity with the provision and therefore, learned trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit.

5. Secondly as the plaintiff had not maintained any account of loan nor furnished to the appellant any statement of account in respect there of, as required under S.3(1)(a) and S.3(1)(b) of the Act, therefore the trial Court has erred in awarding the amount of Rs. 99,000/- as interest over the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

6. On the other hand, Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the decree and vehemently argued that learned trial Court has passed the decree in conformity with the provision contained in S.11(F), (G) and (H) of the Act of 1934 and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court.

8. The questions arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) whether the suit of plaintiff / money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff / money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to the period subsequent to the money lending transactions?
(ii) Where the money - lender has not complied with the requirement of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of S.3(1) of