Mrs. DOREEN BARKAT RAM vs ABDUL HAKIM KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which restored a trial court decree in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,000 based on promissory notes. The core legal question was whether a money-lender's licence, for which a renewal application had been timely filed but not yet processed by the authorities, could be deemed to remain in force at the time the suit was instituted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the statutory 'deeming clause' must be given full effect. The Court held that where a licensee has applied for renewal within the prescribed time, the existing licence continues to be valid and effective until the authorities dispose of the renewal application, regardless of the delay in processing. The key principle laid down is that a party should not suffer prejudice due to administrative delays in processing a timely renewal application, and the statutory protection afforded by the deeming provision ensures the licence remains valid during the pendency of such an application.
- Does a money-lender's licence remain valid after its expiry date if an application for renewal was filed within the prescribed time but not yet decided?
- Can a party be penalized for the failure of the authorities to process a timely renewal application for a money-lending licence?
- Does the 'deeming clause' in money-lending legislation effectively extend the validity of an expired licence until the renewal application is disposed of?
- Section 5, Punjab Registration of Money-Lenders Act 1938
- Section 3(5), West Pakistan Money Lenders Ordinance 1960
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-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.
2. Originally, eight issues were framed. Subsequently, another issue 7-A was framed to the effect "whether the plaintiff is a licensed money-lender."
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. For these reasons, we see no merit in this petition, and, accordingly, dismiss the same.
Cited by 2 cases
- RASHID-UR-REHMAN vs Mian IQBAL HASSAIN 2005 PLD Lahore 416
- RASHID-UR-REHMAN vs Mian IQBAL HUSSAIN 2005 CLD 978