9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the hand note as evidence. 2. Non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939. 3. Whether the provisions of Rule 11 are mandatory or directory. 4. Prejudice caused to the defendant due to non-compliance with Rule 11. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the Hand Note as Evidence: The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1500 due to the hand note being inadequately stamped and thus inadmissible as evidence. On appeal, the District Judge reversed this decision, holding the hand note as a mere receipt for the money paid, duly stamped, and admissible in evidence. The single Judge in the second appeal upheld the trial court's decision but noted the plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules. 2. Non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939: The plaintiff, a registered money-lender, did not comply with Rule 11, which mandates the inclusion of specific particulars in the plaint, such as the date and number of the registration certificate, the maximum capital, and a copy of the account referred to in Section 7 of the Act. The single Judge considered this non-compliance as an irregularity rather than an illegality affecting the court's jurisdiction to pass the decree. 3. Whether the Provisions of Rule 11 are Mandatory or Directory: The judgment discussed whether the provisions of Rule 11 are mandatory, requiring strict compliance, or directory, allowing some flexibility. The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's interpretation that the use of "shall" in a statute does not necessarily imply mandatory compliance in all cases. The court concluded that the provisions of Rule 11 are directory, meaning non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the proceeding unless prejudice is shown. 4. Prejudice Caused to the Defendant Due to Non-compliance with Rule 11: The court emphasized that the main question was whether the failure to comply with Rule 11 caused prejudice to the defendant. It was noted that the trial court and the defendant did not raise objections regarding non-compliance at the earliest stage. The court found no prejudice to the defendant, as the litigation focused on whether the loan was taken and the admissibility of the hand note. The court agreed with earlier judgments that the suit should not be dismissed solely due to non-compliance with Rule 11 unless the plaintiff fails to rectify the omission after being given an opportunity. Conclusion: The court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appeal and ruling that non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the suit unless prejudice is shown. The court emphasized the need for the trial court to give the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify omissions before dismissing the suit. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout the litigation.
|
