AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Misra, J.—The Defendant filed an application calling upon the Plaintiffs to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 of - the Orissa Money lenders Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 11 lays down:
Every plaint in a suit by a money-lender as defined in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (j) of Section 2 shall, in addition to any other particulars that may be required by any law, contain the following particulars:
(i) date and number of his registration certificate,
(ii) maximum capital in respect of which he holds certificate, and
(iii) a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of section of the Act relevant to the case.
Reading the plaint and comparing it with Rule 11, I find that there is no non-compliance. The date and the number of the registration certificate have been given and the maximum capital in respect of which the Plaintiffs hold the certificate has also been mentioned. The only difference is that in the plaint the maximum capital is mentioned as more than twenty-thousand rupees. Mr. Rao is prepared to correct the plaint mentioning therein the ''maximum capital mentioned in the certificate. An extract of the account has been filed along with the plaint. On the fact of it therefore, subject to the correction being made by Mr. Rao, there is no non-compliance with Rule 11.
The burden of Mr. De''s argument is that the Plaintiffs must disclose the maximum capital in which they are transacting over Rs. 20,000/- mentioned in the certificate. To give an illustration, if the Plaintiffs� maximum capital of the money-lending business come to one lakh, Mr. De wants that in the plaint they must mention that one lakh is their maximum capital. This contention is fantastic and contrary to the very requirements of Rule 11 which only enjoins that the maximum capital in respect of which Plaintiff holds certificate is to be mentioned.
This application, filed before the Court below with a view to delay the trial of the suit, appears to be wholly frivolous. In the result, the civil revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 50/-. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit before the summer vacation.