CSA 89/91 - Devi Lal Vs. Ratan Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.24.2.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.89/1991 Devi Lal Vs. Ratan Lal & Anr. Date of Order : 24th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Narendra Singh for the appellant. None present for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondents despite service. 2. This appeal arises out of the concurrent judgments of two courts below rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2538/- from the defendant. 3. The learned courts below have found that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 the suit could not be decreed as the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof as laid upon him as per the aforesaid provisions of the Act which requires the plaintiff to maintain regular books of account in the form of cash book, ledger and receipt book and monthly instalments was to be supplied to the defendant under the said provisions. The courts below have found that in absence of said burden being discharged by the plaintiff, the suit could not be decreed. 4. Having heard learned counsel, this court finds that the courts below have discussed the relevant laws and provisions of the Act and thus, arrived at the finding that the plaintiff was a money CSA 89/91 - Devi Lal Vs. Ratan Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.24.2.09 2/3 lender falling within the scope of Act of 1963. Though this appeal was admitted by this Court way back on 26.11.1991 with the following substantial questions of law framed by this Court which are reproduced here:- “1. Whether the provisions of Rajasthan Sahukari Act, 1963 are applicable to this case, and whether the loan in dispute comes in the purview of the definition of 'loan' u/s.2(9)(J) of the aforesaid Act, 1963? 2. Whether the courts below have looked into the provisions of sec.26 of the aforesaid Act, 1963 and applied then properly in this case? 3. Whether the courts below have erred in not looking into that even if the provisions of Secs.22 and 23 of the aforesaid Act, 1963 are applied then too entire suit can't be dismissed and only interest part can be disallowed?” 5. This Court is of the opinion that these questions deserve to be answered against the plaintiff-appellant for the reasons narrated by the courts below in the impugned judgment. 6. The questions are accordingly answered in favour of the defendant-respondents and against the plaintiff-appellant. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. CSA 89/91 - Devi Lal Vs. Ratan Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.24.2.09 3/3 item No.6 babulal/-