Daitari Sahu vs Pegal Panda and Another

P.K. Mohanti, J.—The unsuccessful Plaintiff has preferred this civil revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act.

The Plaintiff is a registered money-lender. He brought the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 330/- on the basis of a handnote dated 2-5-1974. The Defendants denied the suit loan and contended that Defendant No. 1 had borrowed one chela of paddy from the Plaintiff and had affixed his signature and thumb mark on a blank paper as security for the loan. Although he had repaid the loan, the Plaintiff did not return the blank paper containing the thumb mark and signature of Defendant No. 1. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable for noncompliance with the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.

Both parties led'' evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned S.C.C. Judge without discussing the evidence on record dismissed the suit on account of some suspicious features of the suit document.

It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the decision of the learned S.C.C. Judge is liable to be set aside due to non-consideration of the evidence on the record. The learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties on the other hand contended that the Plaintiff not having complied with the provisions of Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act the suit was not maintainable.

The relevant provisions of Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act are extracted below:

18-B. Power of the Government to require moneylenders to produce records: (1) The State Government may, from time to time, by notification, require the money-lenders or money-lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in any local area, to produce before such authority and by such date as may be specified in the said notification, all records relating to their business documents evidencing advance of loans.

(2) The authority specified in the notification referred to in Sub-section (1) shall scrutinise the documents with a view to determining if the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and shall, after giving the money-lender a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass an order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the said certificate.

xx xx xx

(8) No Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any loan advantage 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.

xx xx xx

It is not disputed that the State Govt. in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 18-B had issued Notification No. S.R, Order 713/76 dated 9-7-1976 requiring the money-lenders carrying on business within the Bhadrak Tahasil to produce before the S.D.O. of Bhadrak all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loan within one month from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, The notification was duly published in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette dated 14-7-1976, The Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he had produced before the prescribed authority the records relating to his money lending business including the document evidencing advancement of the suit loan and that particulars thereof were contained in the order made under Sub-section (2) of Section 18-B, The provisions of Section 18-B are mandatory being enacted for the protection of the debtors and for preventing fraud and malpractices by unscrupulous money- lenders. Non-compliance of the mandatory provisions would defeat the object of the legislation. In order to maintain the suit it was the primary duty of the Plaintiff to plead and prove that the provisions of Section 18-B were duly complied with. In the absence of pleading and proof, the Plaintiff''s suit abated by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 18-B of the Act.

In view of my above finding, the Civil Revision stands dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.