Edu Khan vs Raj Kumar Gupta

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory dated 08.05.2013 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in civil suit No. 01(B)/2012, whereby an application preferred by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w section 151 of CPC has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Parimal Vs. Harish Kumar reported in 1997 (1) VB 27 and Smt. Prembai and Others Vs. Ghanshyam and Others, to contend that the additional issues proposed by the defendant as contained in an application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w section 151 of CPC (Annexure P-5) are relevant to the issue involved especially when the defendant in the written statement at para 10 has made special submission by stating that the plaintiff is a money lender by occupation but does not hold any license in that regard.

The aforesaid decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant are of no avail as in the first decision of Parimal (supra) the money was advanced by one of the party in his capacity as money lender which is not the case herein and in the second decision of Smt. Prembai (supra) there is no quarrel in respect of the proposition laid down in regard to the aim and object of Order 14 Rule 5 r/w section 151 of CPC, but the fact remains that the plaintiff has no where urged the proposition that he is a money lender. Thus, both the said citations are of no relevance to the issue involved herein.

The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of loan extended by the plaintiff to the defendant which is being sought to be recovered by the suit.

The framing of additional issue as proposed that whether the plaintiff is a money lender or not may not have much relevance since the plaintiff has no where alleged that the said transaction of loan was in the course of business of money lending. Moreover, any individual whether he is a money lender or not can very well extend financial assistance to his friends or acquaintances with an assurance by the opposite party to return the same on certain terms and while doing so the said two persons enter into a contract which may or may not be in writing. The breach of compliance on the part of one of the parties can lead to the other party taking action by way of filing civil suit for recovery of money.

In view of above, no fault can be found in the impugned order in rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w section 151 of CPC.

The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is limited to ensure that the court below do not transgress its jurisdictional level. No such jurisdictional transgression has been committed by the court below.

In view of above, no case for interference is made out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed, sans cost.