P L D 1993 Lahore 55 (PLP)
NAIK MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus BARKAT ULLAH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1993 Lahore 55 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | NAIK MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus BARKAT ULLAH‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1993 Lahore 55 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1993 Lahore 55 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1993 Lahore 55 (PLP) (NAIK MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus BARKAT ULLAH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Money‑Lenders' Ordinance (XXIV of 1960) ‑ ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2(i), 3 & 10 ... Suit for recovery of money dismissed ‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑ Plaintiff being a money‑lender did not hold "effective licence" at the time of institution of suit ‑‑‑ Plaintiff's plea of pendency of application for renewal of licence, could not negate clear. legislative mandate that suit would be dismissed if no subsisting licence was held by money‑lender at the time of institution of suit‑‑ Plaintiff's suit was, thus, rightly dismissed by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
The summoned record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.24,600 riled by the appellant against the respondent on the basis of a promissory note under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court in view of section 10 of 'the Punjab Money-Lenders' Ordinance, 1960, which provides that a suit riled by a money-lender for recovery of loan shall be dismissed unless he holds an effective licence granted under section 3 of the Ordinance at the time of the institution of the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the appellant is a money-lender. It is, however, argued that as, at that time an application for renewal of the licence of the appellant was pending before the Collector, the trial Court acted illegally in dismissing the suit. 4. 1 regret my inability to agree with the learned counsel. Section 10 of the Ordinance provides in emphatic terms that a suit filed by a money-lender shall be dismissed unless he holds at the time of filing of the suit an effective licence under section 3 of the Ordinance. The expression "effective licence" has been defined by section 2(i) of the Ordinance 8 "a licence which has not been suspended or cancelled or which has not expired". It is, thus, obvious that a licence, the validity of which had expired, cannot be said to be an effective licence. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that suit could not have been dismissed under section 10 of the Ordinance on account of pendency of the application' for renewal. Such an interpretation is not borne out by the language of section 10, which makes the holding of a licence as a condition precedent to the institution of the suit.
5. The legislative intent has been made clear by use of expression "effective licence" rather than licence in section 10 and also by specifically providing that such a licence must be held by the money-lender at the time of the institution of the suit. The pendency of an application for renewal cannot negate the clear legislative mandate that suit shall be dismissed by the Court if no subsisting licence is held by the money-lender. Section 10 unmistakably on the face of it is mandatory and provides the consequences flowing from institution of the suit by a money-lender who does not hold a valid and a subsisting licence'.