Joginder Singh vs Pakhar Singh Amir Singh

Viney Mittal, J.—The defendants are in appeal, a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/- was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, M/s. Pakhar Singh Amir Singh. It was claimed by the plaintiff-firm that it was a registered partnership firm and was carrying on the business of commission agent at Mandi Bariwala and maintaining accounts in three bahis. The balance was being struck every day and the account books were produced before the income tax and the sales tax authorities. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants had been selling their agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff-firm and had been receiving various amounts on credit from the plaintiff-firm. The account was being settled from time to time and in token thereof, the defendants used to put their thumb impressions on the accounts books of the plaintiff-firm.

It was claimed by the plaintiff that on February 22,1983, the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 17,296/- and had directed the plaintiff-firm to pay Rs. 1000/- to M/s. Makkar Model Farm, Bariwala. They had also certified the accounts to be correct and had thumb marked the entry in token thereof. At that time, the balance was struck at Rs. 70,000/-. An entry was also made in the cash book in that regard. It was claimed that the defendants have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per mensem. It was further claimed that the defendants had also borrowed an amount of Rs. 4500/- subsequently. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/-. It was clarified that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 74,600/- was the principal amount whereas Rs. 15,400/- was claimed as interest amount.

The defendants contested the suit. They admitted that they had been selling their agricultural produce through the plaintiff-firm but they denied that they had borrowed any amount from the plaintiff-firm. They claimed that as and when they had been paid the price of their agricultural produce, their thumb impressions were obtained by the plaintiff-firm in the accounts books. The defendants specifically denied the fact that any amount was due from them towards the plaintiff-firm. Additionally, an objection was taken that the plaintiff-firm was a money lender and as such since there was no licence of money lending under the Punjab Registration of Money Lender Act, 1987, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-firm was not maintainable.

The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on the record decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 66,854/-. However, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff-firm was a money lender and had duly produced on the record a money lender licence but since it has failed to prove that the firm had been maintaining accounts and sending regular statements u/s 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, therefore, the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to interest and costs. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as aforesaid. Additionally, the plaintiff-firm was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount.

The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence and came to the similar conclusion as has been arrived at by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed.

The defendants have still felt aggrieved and have approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.

I have heard Mr. Hemant Sarin, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.M.L. Arora, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

Mr. Hemant Sarin, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has primarily challenged the judgments of the learned Courts below on the basis of the provisions provided under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938. On that basis it has been argued by the learned Counsel that a perusal of the money lending licence produced by the plaintiff-firm as Ex. P3 on the record would show that the aforesaid licence was valid till July 6,1982 and since the present suit has been filed in the year 1984 and since nothing has been shown that the plaintiff-firm had held any money lending license at that point of time, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been decreed. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Daljit Kumar and Anr. v. Popal Dass 1981 P.L.J. 174 and Magni Singh v. Mahinder Singh 1977 P.L.J. 411.

In reply to the aforesaid contention Mr. S.M.L. Arora, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently argued that in fact the plaintiff-firm has specifically contended that it was a commission agent and having such dealings with the defendants. All transactions which stood relied by the plaintiff-firm were such transactions which were entered between them because of the business of commission agent. On that basis Shri Arora has argued that the plaintiff-firm could not be treated to be a money lender in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Shri Arora has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Chint Ram Sohan Lal v. Amar Singh 1987 PLR 674.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas raised on behalf of the learned Counsels for the parties.

From the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, it is apparent that finding of fact, as recorded by the learned Courts below, with regard to the amount in question being due to the defendants has not been assailed and possibly could not be assailed in view of the evidence on the record. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, as noticed by me above is that the suit of the plaintiff-firm was liable to be dismissed in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the Act. However, it is apparent from the perusal of various averments in the plaint that the plaintiff-firm had based his claim, on the basis of its business of commission agency and the transactions between the defendants and the plaintiff-firm because of the aforesaid business.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court further shows that the suit of the plaintiff-firm has been decreed on the basis of the aforesaid transactions. It is apparent that the case of the plaintiff-firm is squarely covered by the law laid down in Chint Ram Sohan Lal''s case (supra). Accordingly, it cannot be suggested that the plaintiff-firm could be treated to be a money lender. Once it is held that the plaintiff-firm could not be held to be a money lender, then the basic argument raised by Mr. Sarin, obviously falls to the ground.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.