Shekarappa vs Mahadevappa

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a plaintiffs revision petition calling in question the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S. No. 38/2006 dated 14.07.2010.

Fact in brief which has lead to filing of this Revision Petition can be crystallized as under:

Plaintiffs seeking recovery of Rs. 21,500/- from the defendant filed a suit contending inter alia that defendant on 23.01.2004 had availed loan of Rs. 21,500/- by executing "hand loan chit" in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses.) Though defendant had agreed to repay the said amount, it was not repaid despite issuance of legal notice which was duly served on defendant and he has neither replied the legal notice nor paid the amount demanded under the legal notice. Hence, suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 21,500/- with interest came to be filed.

On service of suit summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and despite sufficient time being granted he did not file his written statement and as such, written statement was taken as not having been filed. Plaintiff in order to prove his claim got himself marked as P.W. 1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. After considering the arguments and material evidence available on record, trial court formulated following points for its consideration.

"1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

2) What order or decree?"

After considering the pleadings and on evaluation of available evidence, both oral and documentary, trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff is a money lender and he had not obtained licence from the appropriate authority as required under Section 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and evidence on record also disclosed that plaintiff had granted loans to several other persons and as such, plaintiff being a money lender and not having obtained licence as required under Section 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, he would not be entitled to seek recovery of the amount and as such, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff has not complied with Sections 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act.

It is the contention of Shri Hemanth Chandangoudar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that Trial Court committed a serious error in not considering the fact that defendant has obtained a loan from the revision petitioner by executing a chit and though plaintiff was not carrying on any business of money lending trial court could not have dismissed the suit on the ground of plaintiff not possessing valid licence to carry money lending business and as such, there is a material irregularity that has occasioned which calls for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, I am of the considered view that present revision petition does not merit admission for the reasons that would unfold herein below.

It is not in dispute that plaintiff had filed suit against defendant on the ground that he had availed a loan of Rs. 21,500/- on 21.03.2004 by executing "hand loan chit" in the presence of the witnesses and not repaid the same. Undisputedly, to prove Ex. P-1 plaintiff did not examine the witnesses who are said to have attested Ex. P-1.

Be that as it may. The fact that plaintiff had advanced loans to several other persons also came to be admitted by him in the present suit. The Trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect in this regard.

"19. While arguing the Advocate xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx facts of the case. Because, plaintiff he himself has clearly admitted by filing petition in one of the suit stating that he has made several loan transactions that several defendants for which he had already filed various suits and Small Cause before this court through various Advocates. So, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has not at all proved Ex. P-1 document by any cogent evidence. So, in the present case when the plaintiff has not at all complied Sec. 20 or 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act then even though plaintiffs claim is established he cannot get the decree in his favour."

In view of above admission made by plaintiff and also the fact that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that he is possessing a valid money lending licence, Trial Court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that suit in question was not maintainable and plaintiff was not entitled for the decree in the absence of any other independent evidence to establish the fact that plaintiff was not a money lender. This Court would have definitely entertained claim of the plaintiff had he taken a plea that loan transaction is a solitary transaction and there was no other transaction. However, in the absence of said plea or evidence, finding arrived at by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit cannot be faulted with.

Hence, revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Judgment and decree passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S. No. 38/2006 dated 14.07.2010 is hereby affirmed.