Punjab-Haryana High Court
Natha Singh vs Malkiat Singh on 19 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039320
RSA-4433-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039320
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110
RSA-4433-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
NATHA SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
MALKIAT SINGH ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has reversed
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
2. In substance, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.6,16,100/- on the basis of a pronote and a receipt. He alleged that the
defendant borrowed Rs.4,04,000/- on 16.06.2010, while promising to repay
the same along with the interest at the rate of 1.5% per month (equivalent to
18% per annum). The defendant while contesting the suit asserted that he
has not taken any loan and the pronote and receipt pertain to the period from
1997 to 2007, which has been misused by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as
PW-1, PW-2 Sh. Harbhajan, Scribe and PW-3 Sh. Guranditta, marginal
witness were examined. All the three persons have admitted that Sh. Natha
Singh is in the business of lending the money on the basis of pronotes and
receipts. Sh. Natha Singh during his cross-examination has admitted that he
lends the money to a very large number of residents of the area and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039320
RSA-4433-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039320
whenever he has spare money he indulges in the business of money lending.
Similar statement has been given by Sh. Harbhajan Singh, Scribe. PW-3 Sh.
Guranditta Singh, marginal witness of the pronote and receipts has stated
that Sh. Natha Singh is a rich person and he lends money on the basis of
pronote and receipts. The First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is
in the business of money lending and in absence of registration/licence, the
plaintiff is not entitled to maintain suit. The Court has relied upon Section 3
of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred
to as the '1938 Act'), which is extracted as under:-
"Section 3: Suits and applications by money lenders
barred, unless money lender is registered and licensed:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money
lender for the recovery of a loan, or an application by a
money lender for the execution of a decree relating to a
loan, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be
dismissed, unless the money lender:
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or deciding the
application for execution:-
(i) is registered; and
(ii) holds a valid license, in such form and manner
as may be prescribed; or (iii) .........
(iv) .........."
4. Thus, the first appeal filed by the defendant was allowed.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant has relied upon
the judgments passed in Har Lal Vs. Kanwar Bhan, 2016 (4) ICC 109,
Dina Nath Vs. Yash Pal, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 105 and Balvinder Singh
Vs. M/s Basaikhi Ram Saina Ram, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 467, to contend
that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff is in the business of
systematic lending and therefore, the bar under Section 3 of the 1938 Act is
not attracted.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039320
RSA-4433-2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039320
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant.
7. On the request of the Court, the learned counsel representing
the appellant has read the cross-examination of Sh. Natha Singh, who has
appeared as PW-1. He has categorically admitted that he is in the business of
money lending and he lends money to a significantly large number of
residents of the area. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
representing the appellant are not applicable to the case.
8. In this case, all the three witnesses examined by the plaintiff
have themselves admitted that Sh. Natha Singh-appellant, is in the business
of lending the money to earn income from interest, which is payable. In
these circumstances, bar to maintainability of the suit under Section 3 of the
1938 Act, is attracted.
9. The learned counsel representing the appellant did not press any
other argument.
10. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal.
11. Dismissed accordingly.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 19th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
