The trial Court decreed the suit and the decree was companyfirmed in appeal on 29th July, 1974 by the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.
The respondent filed an application before the High Court in which he stated that before the trial Court, the appellant had admitted that he had lent money to the tune of approximately Rs.
6785/ on the basis of a promissory numbere and a receipt executed by the respondent on 15th July, 1969 for a cash companysideration of Rs.
In the execution of the decree, the respondents immovable property was brought for auction sale and the appellant had purchased the same and has been in possession of the said property since then.
On the basis of the said statement, the respondent companytended that the appellant was doing money lending business and hence the Act applied to him.
5 7 or 10 thousand although his main occupation was agriculture.
To companyplete the narration of facts, it may be mentioned that the appellant had already executed the trial Court decree since numberstay of the decree was granted.
In the application the respondent, therefore, prayed that the appellant was number entitled to recover any money lent by him and the suit should stand dismissed.
This statement was to be filed within three months from companymencement of the Act.
Admittedly, the appellant had number filed any such statement since according to him, he was number a money lender and the provisions of the Act did number apply to him and to the loan he had advanced to the respondent.
The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.
The respondent defendant preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court.
During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 the Act came into force on 20th July, 1976.
5,000/ .
