CRP 486/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Gogoi, Advocat e. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in Money Suit No. 4 of 2009 (Titl ed as Smt. Pratima Singh -vs- Shri Sanjib Sahu) on the file of the leaned Munsif f No. 1 Dhemaji has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and dec ree dated 06.09.2010 passed in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2010 by the learned Distri ct Judge, Dhemaji, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed t he appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed in Money suit No. 04 of 2009. The Regular Second Appeal being barred under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure this revision petition has been filed. 3. When the revision petition came up for motion hearing before this ourt, the court asked the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to show where both the courts below has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by l aw and/or to show where both the courts have failed to exercise a jurisdiction s o vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 4. To the above query, the learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of t his Court to Section 7D of the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934 (for short ’Act’ on ly) which prohibits institution of suit by money lenders not holding a valid reg istration certificate. Therefore, the plaintiff having failed to satisfy the cou rt that she held a valid registration certificate under the aforesaid Act was ba rred from instituting the suit and thus would contend that the courts below have no jurisdiction to pass the decrees as aforesaid. 5. In order to answer the question raised, it would be appropriate to narra te the pleadings of the parties alongwith material evidence on record including the plaint and written statement in a nutshell. The plaintiff lent an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 22.12.2006 to the defend ant who is the friend of the son of the plaintiff on a verbal agreement to be re paid within two months but the defendant failed to repay the amount within the t ime stipulated. However, on persistent demand the plaintiff could realize an am ount of Rs. 3,000/- on 29.12.2007 from the defendant and the remaining Rs. 17,00 0/- could not be paid and as a consequence on 05.02.2008 the defendant executed an agreement to repay the loan amount within three (3) months which he failed to pay and hence the suit for realization of Rs. 17,000/-. The plaintiff sought th e following reliefs:- i) Pass a decree for realization of Rs. 17,000/- from the defendant; ii) Pay interest on the aforesaid amount by the defendant for which the plaintif f is entitled to as per law; iii) Cost of the suit; iv) Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled to as per law and equity . 6. The defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, also denied to have taken any money on lent f rom the plaintiff. However, in paragraph 11 of the written statement has specifi cally pleaded that the plaintiff being a private person and without valid licens e she cannot give loan to anybody. Thus the suit is barred as per provision of t he Act. 7. The learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the follo wing issues- 1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for? 4) To what relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 8. To substantiate her claim regarding lending of money to the defendant, t he plaintiff examined four witnesses apart from exhibiting some documents, where as the defendant examined three witnesses. 9. The learned trial court while deciding issue no. 3 has held that the def endant took loan which he failed to repay and hence the suit for recovery of the said amount relying on Ext-2 along with the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 answered th e issue in the affirmative. In regard to issue no. 2, the learned trial court ha s held that the suit is maintainable holding that the defendant is liable to mak e repayment of loan amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the plaintiff thereby decreeing th e suit entitling the plaintiff to get Rs. 17,000/- from the defendants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of execution of Ext-2 i.e. 05.02 .08 until realization, making it further clear that the defendant is liable to m ake payment of the loan amount of Rs. 17,000/- along with interest at the rate o f 12% p.a. from 05.02.08 to the plaintiff within one month from the date of pass ing of the judgment and order. 10. On appeal by the defendant before the learned District Judge, Dhemiji, t he learned appellate Court modified the decree holding that Ext-2 (deed of agree ment dated 05.02.2008) whereby the defendant agreed to pay the loan amount of Rs . 17,000/- is not a genuine agreement executed voluntarily and cannot be treated the Ext-2 as acknowledgement of debt. However, relying on the evidence of PW 2 and 3 whose evidence were not under challenge before the appellate court by the appellant defendant who, however had challenged Ext-2 executed by the defendant. Moreover, the respondent being PW I deposed that an amount of Rs. 3000/- was re turned by the defendant but the defendant did not challenge or tried to disprove that fact and thus the fact of returning Rs. 3000/- on 24.12.2007 is establish ed. The learned appellate Court however interfered with the rate of interest hol ding that the transaction of Rs. 20,000 was not a commercial one and no rate of interest was fixed between the parties and hence awarded interest @ 6% instead o f interest @ 12% as directed by the learned trial court making it clear that the respondent is entitled to put the decree in execution and hence the time limit to pay the decretal amount as directed is modified but decreed the suit. 11. Now the question urged by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Kalita representin g the petitioner is required to be answered as to whether the suit is barred und er Section 7D of the Act (as amended). In order to answer the question, Section 2(1) of the Act would suffice. Section 2(1) of the Act is quoted hereunder- (1) ’Money lender’ means a person who in the regular course of business, advanc es a loan as defined in this Act and shall include, subject to the provisions of section 6, the legal representatives and the successors in interest whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise of the person who advanced the loan and mon ey lending shall be construed accordingly. The above definition would specify that the money lender advances loan in regula r course of business and other provisions of sections in the Act is required to be strictly followed and a casual lender is not expected to do all these and the refore cannot be brought under the Act as urged, moreso, when the appellate cour t has held that the transaction was not a commercial business and hence the ques tion is answered in the negative. Moreover, the question of bar to institute the suit as per provision under the Act as urged before this Court was not raised b efore the courts below and the said question for the first time has been raised in the instant revisions petition which cannot be allowed to be raised under rev isional jurisdiction. 12. In the result the civil revision petition is found to be devoid of any m erit, inasmuch as, there is no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity co mmitted in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Courts below warranting i nterference by this Court. 13. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.