Judgement JUDGEMENT :- This is a second appeal in a civil suit which has been dismissed by both the courts below on the precise ground of non-compliance of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. 2. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that S.26(b) of the Money Lenders Act as amended in 1976 cannot be applied to the case, which was already pending. According to him, this will be giving retrospective operation which cannot be given, because it would result in divesting him of the vested rights in a decree in a civil suit. Mr. Rastogi's contention is that the rights of the parties should be decided in accordance with law on the date of filing of the civil suit and not according to law which comes into force later on. This point has precisely been considered by this court in Kanhiyalal v. Srilal (1980 Raj LW 301), in which the learned Judge of this Court observed as under :- "Rajasthan Money Lenders Act - As introduced by amending Act, S.26(b) - Whether retrospective suit, in amended S.26(b) of the Act, embraces within its ambit even the pending suits. It can, therefore, be said, that keeping in view the 'purpose or object' or the 'reasons and spirit' of the Act, the provisions of S.26(b) of the Act as they stand after the amendment by the amending Act of 1976, will apply to pending suits also and if Ss.22 and 23 have not been complied with, then the court has to dismiss the suit." 3. Again, another Judge of this Court took the same view in Ranchordas v. Malookchand, (1980 WLN 580) : (AIR 1981 NOC 72). The learned Judge observed as under:- "The intention of the legislature has been clearly and undoubtedly expressed that the amended S.26(b) is to apply to the pending suits. It is enjoined that the Court shall dismiss the whole suit where it finds that the provisions of Ss.22 and 23 of fie Act have not been complied with by the Money-lender, in respect of the whole claim." 4. While doing so in Ranchordas's case, the learned Judge extracted the statement of objects and reasons of the amendment. Reliance was placed on another judgement of this Court in Kishan Pyari v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (1977 Raj LW 77):( AIR 1978 Raj 9 ) in Ranchordas's case. While doing so in Ranchordas's case, the learned Judge extracted the statement of objects and reasons of the amendment. Reliance was placed on another judgement of this Court in Kishan Pyari v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (1977 Raj LW 77):( AIR 1978 Raj 9 ) in Ranchordas's case. The learned Judge was of the view that the law is well settled and it is not necessary to quote any authority on this point. 5. In Kanahiyalal's case (1980 Raj LW 301) (supra) the learned Judge considered the decision of S.B.K. Oil Mills, ( AIR 1961 SC 1596 ) and after taking guidance from the principles, examined the amending Act by which S.26(b) was substituted. 6. An express reference was made that by this amendment two sections were amended, and they are 11 and 26. Whereas in S.11 the legislature expressly provided an exception of its application to those cases pending, but no such exception was carved out in S.26(b), When the legislature acts at a particular point of time in legislation two provisions in the same Act, and in one_retrospective effect is avoided by_making an exception and in the other drastic consequences are contemplated by not enacting such an explanation, or exception, this court while interpreting the law has got no option but to respect the wishes of the legislature, though seemingly it may create hardship to those money-lenders who have already filed their suits and were not aware of the drastic consequences of non-compliance of the sections of the Act. Such an intention of the legislature cannot be challenged unless it lacks any legislative authority or becomes violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. Obviously, none of the two contingencies, contemplated have been shown to exist, as there is no challenge to plenary authority, nor there is any violation of the constitutional provisions. That being so, I have got no hesitation in holding that the view taken by this Court in the two cases above requires no reconsideration for review. 7. Mr. Rastogi pointed out that the general principles of the statute is that the statute should be treated prospective, and not retrospective, and this is more so when the provisions are penal in nature. There cannot be any dispute about this principle of law which is well settled. 7. Mr. Rastogi pointed out that the general principles of the statute is that the statute should be treated prospective, and not retrospective, and this is more so when the provisions are penal in nature. There cannot be any dispute about this principle of law which is well settled. However, as discussed above, it all depends upon the scheme of the Act, intention to enact a particular statute and merely on the basis of generalisation when expressly by providing contra-language in S.11 in contrast to S.26(b), the legislature expresses its intention, this Court cannot infer to the contrary. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to discuss the various authorities submitted by Mr. Rastogi on the general principle of statutes. 8. The second limb of submission of Mr. Rastogi is that the original debt was of 1967, but the accounts were taken and a new document was executed in 1973, and the suit is based on this new document. Mr. Rastogi pointed out that even if it is assumed that the provisions of S.26(b) apply and on account of that other provisions of the Money-lenders Act will have their effect, then also he has not committed any violation of any other provisions of the Money Lenders Act. 9. A perusal of the finding of the trial Court shows that Issue No.4 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue N. 4 reads as under :- In the first appellate Court certain documents were sought lo be produced under O.41, R.27, C.P.C. The first appellate Court has considered the implications of those documents, and then held that these documents cannot save the plaintiff from the drastic consequence of dismissal inasmuch as they relate to the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. It was then held that in the documents of 1975 and 1976, the rate of interest has not been shown, nor any payments have been adjusted. It was further pointed out that it has not been showing compliance of Ss.22 and 23, that any statement of accounts was sent to the latter. On these findings the first appellate court after examining the document submitted by the plaintiff has held that Ss.22 and 23 have not been complied with. It was further pointed out that it has not been showing compliance of Ss.22 and 23, that any statement of accounts was sent to the latter. On these findings the first appellate court after examining the document submitted by the plaintiff has held that Ss.22 and 23 have not been complied with. I am in agreement with the view taken by the first appellate Court and hold that the finding about non-compliance of Ss.22 and 23 does not call for any interference, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. It is true that the present case is a case in which it hag been proved that money was advanced and the documents were executed and even then suit has been dismissed. However, the remedy for this lies by an appeal to the legislature and not in this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. In view of the special features of this case, 3/4th of the court-fees shall be refunded under the provisions of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act to Mr. Rastogi.