Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 528 of 1972, decided on 10th July 1973.

(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on the 10th of May 1972, in R. S. A. No. 488 of 1961).

----S. 5 & West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance (XXIV of 1960), S. 3(5)‑Licence issued expiring on 28‑1‑1955 and money‑lender applying for its renewal on 27‑12‑1954‑Money suit instituted on 17m1‑1960, and licence issued on 18‑8‑1961‑Old licence, held, enured until licence renewed in August 1961.

------Execution of pronotes admitted‑Defendant could not challenge consideration mentioned in pronotes as having not been received by her.

Bashir Zafar, Advocate assisted by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 10th July 1973.

The respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum of Rs.4,000 on the basis of three promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioner for valuable consideration.

In her written statement, the petitioner admitted the execution of the promissory notes but alleged that she had not received full consideration in respect thereof. According to her, she had only been paid Rs.2,000 and had been made to execute promissory notes for double the amount actually paid. The actual amount, she claims she has paid up at the rate of Rs.200 p. m. in 14 installments. She also set up a plea that there had been a novation of the contract by mutual consent in so far as one Mr. Aslant Lodhi of Maain s Restaurant had taken upon himself to clear the out-standings of the petitioner.

Originally, eight issues were framed. Subsequently, another issue 7‑A was framed to the effect "whether the plaintiff is a licensed money‑lender."

The trial Court found all issues against the petitioner and decreed the suit. So far as issue No. 7‑A was concerned, the finding was that the respondent held a licence under the Punjab Registration of Money‑Lenders Act, 1938, which expired on the 28th of January 1955. He bad applied for its renewal a month before on the 27th of December 1954, that is, well before the time prescribed in the statute, but no order had been passed thereon. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 1938 or subsection (5) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance, 1960, the licence issued to him which was to expire on the 28th of January 1955 was to deemed to be continuing in force and effective throughout. The suit was instituted on the 17th of July 1960 and the new licence was issued actually on the 18th of August 1961.

On appeal, the District Judge took the view that the suit must fail because there was no valid or subsisting licence in favour of the respondent at the time he filed the suit. In second appeal, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court reversed the first appellate Court's decree and restored the decree granted by the trial Court agreeing with the trial Court that the licence issued in favour of the respondent in 1954 continued in force till it was renewed in 1961.

The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has sought to challenge the validity of this argument by contending that since licences were to be issued from year to year, the licence could not be deemed to be effective or to be continuing in force merely on the making of the application for the renewal for any period in excess of a year, namely, the period for which the licence itself could be granted.

In any event, it could not be deemed to continue for any period longer than the period for which a licence could at all be granted.

We have examined the provisions of the statute and we find no difficulty in agreeing with the conclusions of the High Court that the deeming clause must be given effect with all its consequences and incidents. Therefore; the old existing licence was validly held by the High Court to be enuring until the Collector had disposed of the application pending before him by the renewal of the licence in August 1961. It was for no fault of the respondent that the application was kept pending for such a long time, and there is no reason why he should suffer on that account.

The petitioner has nothing to say on merits. After the admission of the execution of the promissory notes she could not challenge that the consideration mentioned therein was not received by her.

For these reasons, we see no merit in this petition, and, accordingly, dismiss the same.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.