AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Khan, J.—In this case which was for the recovery of a sum due on a bond, the trial Court decreed the suit and this decision was affirmed in appeal. In defendant''s second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions:
One, that the bond contained certain corrections and that therefore it should have been regarded as a false document. Both the courts below have considered this point and after considering the point have come to the conclusion that the bond is a genuine document, despite certain corrections.
The second point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff did not have a subsisting licence under the Madhya Bharat Money Lender''s Act (Act No. 62 of 1950). In the written statement, the defendant had taken the plea that the plaintiff did not have any licence at all. It seems that when the plaintiff produced a licence which authorised, him to do the business from 25-10-52 to 25-10-55, the defendant took the plea that the licence had not been renewed. The disputed amount according to the memo of appeal was given on 10.4.55, namely, during the period when the licence was in force. It is now argued that the plaintiff did not get this licence renewed and he could not therefore bring a suit. But at the time of giving the loan the plaintiff had a licence which was in force. Assuming that, after the expiry of the licence, he did not have it renewed, then the lack of renewal would estop him from doing the money lending, business in the future. But past transactions of the period when he had a licence would not he affected.
Other grounds, concerning facts, cannot be considered in second appeal.
For reasons slated above, this appeal is dismissed.