RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Ramroop .....Appellant v. Deepak Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10784-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 136 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.10783-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3784 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide which suit filed by respondent- plaintiff was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) -2- learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `64,500/-, i.e., `42,000/- as principal and `22,500/- as interest calculated @ 1.5% per month from the date of accrual till the date of filing of the suit alongwith pendente lite interest on the ground that defendant borrowed `42,000/- from him and executed a pronote and receipt dated 7.11.2002 in the presence of witness with a promise to refund the same alongwith interest @ 1.5% per month. Present appellant-defendant contested the suit denying ever borrowed any amount from plaintiff and denying the very execution of the pronote and receipt. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree by the appellant. However, the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that respondent-plaintiff was a regular money lender and that however, he was not having any money lending licence and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money-Lenders' Act, 1938 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act'). He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Daljit Kumar and another v. Popal Dass, 1981 PLJ 174. So far as this plea, as taken by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is concerned, the same has been duly discussed by learned first appellate Court and the plea was declined by observing as under:- RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) -3- “10.Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant has also argued with force that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any alleged amount alongwith interest from the appellant-defendant as he was a regular money lender and as a regular money lender he had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Money Lending Act, but again the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant cannot be held of worthy of according any credence at all as the appellant-defendant in this regard, barring his ocular bald uncorroborated statement, has failed to place on the record of this file any cogent or other documentary proof in order to prove that at the time of the execution of the pronote and receipt in question the plaintiff was a regular money lender or had been habitually doing the business of money lending. Again, needless to say that the ocular bald uncorroborated testimony of the defendant in the absence of supportive or documentary evidence cannot be held worthy of according any credence. 11. Even otherwise it is a well settled proposition of law that a casual advance of money to few persons does not make such a person a money lender. This Court is supported in its view aforesaid from the ratio of law laid down in a citation, i.e., Kacheru and another v. Ram Dita Mal 1984 HAP page 465, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed the similar view. Therefore, on this score also the case of the appellant-defendant has to lick the dust. RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) -4- 12. In this respect, it is worthwhile to mention here that the perusal of Ex.P6, i.e., money lending licence, placed on the record of this file by the respondent-plaintiff, clearly shows that the plaintiff had obtained the aforesaid licence on 2.3.05 which was valid from 2.3.2005 to 23.1.2008 meaning thereby that the plaintiff had done the business of regular money lending during the aforesaid period only but since the transaction in question between him and the defendant by dint of pronote and receipt in question had taken place much prior thereto, i.e., on 17.11.2002, so the plaintiff at the time of transaction in question cannot be held to be a regular money lender or lending the money at that time as a habitual money lender. Hence, on this score also, the case of the appellant-defendant fails. Hence, in view of the said finding of fact, respondent-plaintiff obtained money lending lincence Annexure P6, before passing of the impugned judgment and decree. However as it is not proved that he was a regular money lender even on the date of advancing the amount to appellant-defendant, i.e., on 17.11.2002, it cannot be said that the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Act. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said RSA No.3784 of 2011(O&M) -5- finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 19.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge