IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2252 of 2007 Between: S. Niranjan .. Petitioner AND M/s. Padmalaya Finance Corporation, Nagarkurnool rep. by its Manager G. Shankar. .. Respondent Petition against the Judgment in A.S. No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, dated 15-02-2007. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Mahipathy Rao, Advocate for the revision petitioner, and of Sri K. Sreenivas, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Nagarkurnool, dated 15-02-2007. O.S. No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nagarkurnool was filed for recovery of money based upon a promissory note and the defendant/present revision petitioner resisted the suit on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349F apart from various factual defences raised against the suit claim. The trial Court framed appropriate issues on the questions in controversy between the parties, out of which the 4th issue related to the registration of the plaintiff firm and the suit being hit by the said Act. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.W.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B.1 to B.5 were marked. The trial Court rendered its judgment on 13-09-2004 and in so far as the 4th issue is concerned, the trial Court found that a perusal of Ex.A.4 money lending certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer showed that the plaintiff firm got a valid money lending licence. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that Ex.A.4 was not in respect of any past transaction and in view of the registration of the plaintiff firm and its holding a valid money lending licence, the issue was found in favour of the plaintiff. As the trial Court found the other issues also in favour of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed, against which A.S. No.9 of 2004 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nagarkurnool. In its judgment in appeal, in so far as the question of non- compliance with the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act is concerned, the appellate Court referred to the rival contentions of the parties and the evidence on record and observed that while Exs.A.5 and A.6 prove the registration of the partnership firm, the original of Ex.A.4 certificate was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer due to the original money lending licence being with him at that time for purposes of renewal. The appellate Court felt that as the plaintiff submitted the licence to the Mandal Revenue Officer at the time of applying for renewal, the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot be presumed to be false unless the contrary is proved by the defendant through cogent and clinching evidence. Under such circumstances, the appellate Court also concurred with the trial Court on the said finding. In this revision, the revision petitioner was aggrieved by the appellate Court not considering the additional evidence filed by the revision petitioner in I.A. No.256 of 2006 in A.S. No.9 of 2004 and the revision petitioner also found fault with the non-production of the original licence or certified copy of the same, while the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer is claimed to be having no sanctity. The revision petitioner, of course, also questioned the findings of fact by the Courts below about the consideration for the pronote, which was opined to have been probablised by the Courts below through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents. The revision petitioner also tried to question the acceptance of Exs.A.2 and A.3 without examining and comparing the documents. Heard Sri K. Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent. In so far as the challenge by the revision petitioner to the findings of fact on the question of consideration and on Exs.A.2 and A.3 are concerned, the same are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed before them with reference to the broad human probabilities deduced by them from the material on record. Such concurrent findings of fact could not have been the subject of any interference in the restricted exercise of revisional jurisdiction merely because the revision petitioner was aggrieved by the same, more so, when such findings are not either shown to be divorced from the evidence on record or to be not based on valid reasons. In so far as the objection about the violation of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act is concerned, it is true that Ex.A.4 is only a certified copy of the certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer about the money lending licence of the plaintiff being renewed from 1989 to 2000. It is also true that the original money lending licence or any certified copy of the same for the relevant period was not placed before any of the Courts. However, there is no material on record to suspect the fact of Ex.A.4 being a certified copy of the original certificate issued by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer nor is the genuineness of such original in doubt due to any circumstances placed on record. A reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 F and the Money-Lenders Rules made thereunder shows that a money lending licence issued under Section 3 shall be valid for one year from the date of issue and a money lender is bound to have such licence renewed from time to time in the manner prescribed and it is obvious that for purpose of renewal, the licence held by the money lender also should be submitted to the competent authority along with his application for renewal. The judgment in A.S. No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, dated 20-03-2006 arising out of a similar money suit filed by the respondent herein was attempted to be pressed into service in the appeal by seeking its receipt as additional evidence in I.A. No.256 of 2006, which request obviously did not find favour with the appellate Court. A copy of the said judgment is made available for perusal, by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner for the benefit of this Court and it is seen from the said judgment that the respondent herein placed similar certificates before the Court in that case also, which were refused to be accepted or acted upon, as they do not show that the licences were issued for each year and renewed for each year as enjoined by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 F and Rule 16 of the Rules made thereunder. Apart from the fact that the said finding in the other appeal is a conclusion arrived at between the parties to that litigation which is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem, the presumption of the Court therein that the renewal of the licence from 1989 to 2000 was a one time affair, does not appear to be borne out by anything on record. Ex.A.4 certificate herein, which is obviously identical to the certificates produced in the other litigation, had only stated on the basis of the records available with the Mandal Revenue Office that the money lending licence in favour of the respondent herein was renewed for the period from 1989 to 2000. From the said certificate, it cannot be presumed that the renewal of the licence was not from year to year or that the certificates were not issued each time for a year as enjoined by the Statute and the Statutory rules. The conclusion in the other appeal based on a surmise or conjecture can, therefore, be of no avail to the revision petitioner herein and the concurrent findings by the Courts below about the probability of the existence of money lending licence in favour of the plaintiff during the relevant periods cannot be considered to be perverse or unreasonable or baseless. If it were so, the suit could not have failed on the ground of absence of money lending licence for the respondent and in a restricted exercise of jurisdiction in revision, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-06-2010 Svv