IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 431 of 2004. Date of decision: 06.12.2010. Chain Singh …Petitioner. Versus Jaswant Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sunit Goel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2003 passed in favour of the present petitioner whereby the suit of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- was decreed along with interest and costs. 2. The petitioner (hereinafter to referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. interest from the defendant on the ground that this amount had been loaned to the defendant. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendant has been allowed only on the ground that the plaintiff in his statement has stated that he in addition to doing agriculture work also does the business of money lending and therefore he being a moneylender and not being duly registered could not maintain and file the present suit in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Moneylender Act, 1976. 3. The question whether the petitioner is a moneylender or not is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December, 6, 2010 (guleria)