Lala Ram vs Indra Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3159 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 117/2007

Lala Ram S/o Shri Badri, aged about 46 years, R/o Village
Devgaon, Tehsil Kekri Distt. Ajmer
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Indra Singh S/o Shri Nathudan, aged about 55 years, R/o Village
Devgaon Tehsil Kekri Distt. Ajmer
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Gurjar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Nemi Chand Choudhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/08/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant (for

short 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated

19.12.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kekri, District Ajmer in Civil Original Suit No.20/2006, whereby

the trial court decreed the respondent-plaintiff's (for short 'the

plaintiff') suit and held him entitled to recover Rs.1,47,000/- from

the defendant with interest @ 6% per annum from 12.08.2004.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that learned court

below wrongly decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defendant.

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that learned trial

court evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties on different

yard stick and misread the evidence led by the defendant. Learned

counsel for the defendant also submits that witnesses of the

defendant clearly stated that defendant had paid the amount on

(2 of 2) [CFA-117/2007]

03.09.2005. So, nothing is due against him. Learned counsel for

the defendant also submits that as per the Money Laundering Act,

plaintiff had no license of money lending and present loan was

taken for agriculture purposes. So, civil court had no jurisdiction.

So, appeal filed by the defendant be allowed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that

the defendant failed to adduce the evidence that he had paid the

amount to the plaintiff because no documentary evidence was

produced by the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff

further submitted that there is no need for money lending license.

So, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that money lending

license was not required for these transaction and the trial court

rightly came to the conclusion with regard to jurisdiction of civil

court. So, appeal be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the

plaintiff.

It is an admitted position that defendant had taken

Rs.1,47,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the agreement

(Ex.1). Contention of the defendant that he had paid the money

taken by him but he failed to adduce any cogent evidence for

repayment of the amount. Learned trial court rightly came to the

conclusion that there is no need for money lending license and suit

is triable by civil court. So, in my considered opinion, present

appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, which

stands dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /251

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)