Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK C.R.P. No.29 of 2023 An application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973. *** M/s. Kalinga Software(P) Ltd., Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar & Another … Petitioners. -VERSUS- Ayyagari Nagaraju … Opposite Party. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.K. Sarangi. Sr. Advocate Mr. Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Adv. P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 1 of 8 Date of Hearing: 04.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.07.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This revision under Section 115 and 151 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (defendants in the Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022) against the Opp. Party (plaintiff in the Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022) challenging an order of rejection to their petition dated 09.01.2023 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff in the said Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 passed on dated 25.07.2023 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar. 2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party in this revision being the plaintiff filed Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 on dated 22.06.2022 against the petitioners in this revision arraying them as defendants praying for realization of sum of Rs.1,06,93,261.54p along with pendent lite and future interest stating that, the defendants had received the amount CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 indicated in the plaint from him in order to repay the same within the stipulated time as per agreement, but, failed to repay the same, for which, the plaintiff filed Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 for realization of the above amount with P.I. & F.I. After appearing in Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022, the defendants (petitioners in this revision) filed a petition on dated 09.01.2023 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff itself showing that, the plaintiff is a money lender without any licence for money lending business. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is hit and barred under Sections 4 & 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939. Because, the plaintiff is not a registered money lender under the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 to carry on business of money lending, to which, the plaintiff objected stating in his objection that, Section 4 and 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 is not applicable to the suit. Though, the defendants are very much aware that, the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by law but, still then, they have filed the petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908 for no other reason, but only in CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 3 of 8 order to protract the suit unnecessarily for causing delay in realization of the money from them (defendants). Therefore, the petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the defendants is liable to be rejected. 3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar rejected to the petition dated 09.01.2023 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC of the defendants on dated 25.07.2023 assigning the reasons that, “the matter i.e. whether the plaintiff is carrying on the business of money lending can only be decided during the full scale hearing of the suit framing an issue about the same in the suit, for which, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908, as the above question raised by the defendants for the rejection of the plaint is a matter for adjudication in the trial of the suit.” 4. On being aggrieved with the said order of rejection to the petition dated 09.01.2023 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908 of the defendants passed on dated 25.07.2023 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, they (defendants) challenged the same by filing this Revision being the petitioners against the plaintiff arraying the plaintiff as Opp. Party. CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 4 of 8 5. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners (defendants) and the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party (Plaintiff). In order to assail the impugned order passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners (defendants) relied upon the following decisions: I.(1994) 77 CLT 243: Akshya Kumar Patra Vs. Brajamohan Singh. II. 2018(I) OLR 158:Benu Behera Vs. Gourahari Pradhan. 6. It is very fundamental in law that, at the time of consideration of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908 for rejection of plaint, only the averments made in the plaint is to be seen, but, not the possible defence plea or any other extraneous material other than the averments made in the plaint. 7. The petition under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the defendants for rejection of the plaint is only on the solitary ground that, the suit of the plaintiff is not entertainable under Sections 4 & 8 of The Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939, to which, the learned Trial Court rejected assigning the reasons that, the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff are not attracting Sections 4 CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 & 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 for making the plaint of the plaintiff not entertainable. 8. Section 4 of The Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 provides that, “no person shall carry on the business of money lending after the 22nd day of November, 1975, unless he is registered as a money-lender under the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939.” Section 8 of The Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 provides that, “a money-lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the date on which this section comes into force unless he was registered under this Act at the time, when such an amount was advanced. x x x” 9. The word “money lender” has been defined in Section 2(4)(j) of The Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 which clarifies that, “a person whose business is that of advancing loans but does not include a Bank or Co-operative Society and the expression "money-lending" shall be constituted accordingly.” The word “business of money-lending” has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939, which clarifies that, "business of money-lending" means the business of advancing loans.” CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 6 of 8 The dictionary meaning of “business” is one’s regular occupation or profession. 10. The word “business” has already been clarified in a decision between Secunderabad Club vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Hyderabad reported in AIR 1958 A.P. 332 (Para No.5) that, a business is a trade or profession at which one works regularly and business is ordinarily for profit. 11. The averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff in the Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 are not showing about any regular or continuous lending of money by the plaintiff to different persons for carrying on money lending business. For which, the reasons assigned above by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar in the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 for rejection of the petition dated 09.01.2023 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC, 1908 of the defendants that, the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff are not attracting Sections 4 & 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders’ Act, 1939 for making the Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 of the plaintiff not entertainable cannot be held as erroneous. CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 7 of 8 For which, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the defendants does not arise. 12. The decisions relied by the petitioners indicated in Para No.5 of this Judgment are not applicable to this revision at hand, as the said decisions are not related with the disposal of the petitions under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 13. Therefore, there is no merit in this Revision filed by the petitioners (defendants). The same must fail. 14. In result, the Revision filed by the petitioners (defendants) is dismissed on contest but without cost. The learned Sr. Civil Judge, (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar is directed to dispose of the suit vide Commercial Suit No.145 of 2022 as per law as expeditiously as possible as per law.
Decision
15. As such, this Civil Revision is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23 .07. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 24-Jul-2025 12:05:08 CRP No.29 of 2023 Page 8 of 8