Nikoo Ram Ashok Kumar vs Jagtar Singh

Hemant Gupta, J.—The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for the recovery on the basis of money lent to the defendant from time to time.

Both the courts found that the plaintiff is a money lender but not proved to be holding a licence either on the date of suit or on the date of decree and thus the suit is not competent.

The plaintiff has relied upon the licence Ex.P.31 granted to the plaintiff u/s 4 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938. Said licence was granted in the year 1979. However, in terms of Section 3 of the Act, the plaintiff has to have a valid licence either on the date of filing of the suit or on the date of decree. However, the said licence does not show that the plaintiff had a valid licence on either of the dates.

The appellant moved an application for additional evidence before the first Appellate Court to produce money lender''s licence by way of additional evidence but the same was not permitted to be admitted in evidence relying on a judgment of this Court reported as Ram Rakhi and Ors. v. Kehar Singh and Ors. 1966 C.L.J. P&H 759.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that photo copy of the licence was produced before the Trial Court which shows that the plaintiff has a valid licence renewed up to 2.9.1982 i.e. on the date of filing of suit, the plaintiff had a valid licence. However, the said licence has not been proved on record. Neither the certified copy has been produced nor any person from the concerned Department has been examined to prove that the plaintiff had a valid licence on the date of the filing of the suit. The application for additional evidence was rightly declined by the first Appellate Court. The certified copy of the licence was not produced before the first Appellate Court. In the absence of any admissible evidence, the first Appellate Court was perfectly justified in not permitting the appellant to lead additional evidence at that stage. Since the appellant is not proved to be a licensed money lender either on the date of filing of the suit or on the date of decree, no error can be found in the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal.

Dismissed with no order as to costs.