IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVILREVISIONNOjM;/2008 c-^^ Ayt'LICANT 'J'LAINTIFF , ~^~\^:^ J^j%^' ^^^ ff^. ...-•"T^!.:^.".A,^. ^^ .^' '^^il«-''-' y -<—' •s; ..w RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS /s. Vinod Kumar Pramod Kumar, Registered Partnership Finn, Kirana Vyavasai, Malyiya Road, Raipur (CG) VERSUS l]/Ramlal Ramgopal Agrawal, Vyavasai, Halwai Line, Raipur (CG) 2] Ramlal Agrawal, S/o. Not known to the applicant, R/o. Halwai Line, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HtSHCOURT QF CHHATTBSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kuirou- Mishra .0 <0 APPUCANT PLAiNTiFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Civll Revision No.164 of 2(M)8 tWs. Vinod Kumar Pramod Kumar Vereys Ramtal Ramgopa! Agrawai and anothCT ^VSSIOM UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Shri Mancn Paranjpe, counsel for the applteant. ORAL OROER (29.06.2010) Heard. '~- .i-^. (2) The applicant/ptaintiff has preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.15,737/-. The trial Court allowed the sutt only to the extent of Rs.1,000/-. The appetlate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. (3) The suit was based on three promissory nrtes dat«l 08-05-1977, 13-05-1977 and 05-07-1977. The defendant r^iaid certain amount which was adjusted towarcts accrued interest. Thus according to the riaintiTfthe defendant owed Rs.15,737/- tili the date of filing of the suit. <4) The defendant accepted that they had taken loan but the rate of interest was dented. They also stated that the amount repaid by them was towards principal and not towards interest. tt was ateo stated that the plaintitf is a money lender but is not registered; therefore he is not entitied to ciaim interest. "^ (5) The triat Court found that the amount of Rs.14,(XXy- has been repaid and that sin<% the plaintiff te a money tendw but is not registered he is not entitled to ctaim inter^ in view of the judgment rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in ttie case of Ryaram Bhiwaniwala, Calcutta, West Bsigal and otftCTs Vs. WandfEfehore and otfters reported in 1975 MPU 225 fFuff Bench) and in the case of Kapiinattt Mistri Vs. ShjamWshorefa/ Agaiwaf reported in •f979 (6) The tria! Court thus adjusted the entire amount repaid by the defendant towards principal and held that the plaintiff is entitlKl to a decree of Rs.1 ,QOO/-. (7) Having heard leamed counsel for the applicant this Court is satisfied that no interference is calted for in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts betow. In the case of Rajaram Bhiwaniwala, CateuUa, West Bengal and otfters Vs. Handlsshtwe and offrers (supra) and it has been hetd that if a money lender has not complied with the requirements of Sectton 3 of the C.G. Money Lenders Ad, interest can be disallowed to him under Section 7 of the Act and the amount of interest already paid can be adjusted towards the principal. The above view has been reiterated by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kapihiaffi MisW Vs. ShyamMshorelal Agaiwal (supra). (8) In view of the taw laid down by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court the Courts below have rightly hetd that the plaintiff 1^—'^ -3- .4.^ is not entitled for any interest on ttie amount of toan advanced to the defendant because the plaintiff is found to be a money lender but has not registered himself underthe provisions of Money Lenders Act. (9) This Court does not find any error of jurisdiotion or iliegality committed by the Gourts below while passing the impt^ned judgment and decree. The revision petition is bereft of substance it is accordingly dismissed. ^^^——— Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )<- tei—tBn R8Si