JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,44,000/- with future interest at the rate of 3.5 per cent per month from the date of suit till the payment of the decretal amount. 2. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that one Hanwant Dass Sud applied to the Collector, District Shimla for being registered as a money lender under the Registration of Money Lenders Act but died during the pendency of the application on 13-12-1996. The defendant had business dealing with the deceased and during the course of such dealings had taken loans from the deceased on 4-6-19-95, 26-7-1995, 9-10-1995, 9-11-1995 and 4-12-1995 respectively in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/ -, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- and had promised to repay the loans taken on 4-6-1995, 26-7-1995 and 9-11-1995 with interest at the rate of 3% per month and the remaining loans with interest at the rate of 3.5% per month. The defendant executed demand promissory notes for consideration received by him agreeing to repay the loan amounts on demand. In addition to the above amounts, the defendant also took cash loan from the deceased and issued cheques dated 28-2-1996, 26-9-1996, 4-12-1996 and 29-12-1996 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Shimla respectively for Rs. 50,000/ -, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus, the principal amount taken by the defendant from the deceased amounts to Rs. 7,00,000/-. After the death of the deceased, the plaintiffs who are his legal heirs, requested the defendant to repay the aforesaid amounts which the defendant failed to pay and is thus liable to pay Rs. 12,43,500/- to the plaintiffs. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement the defendant raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and that the suit is time barred. On merits, the status of the plaintiffs as legal representatives of the deceased and that of the deceased as registered money lender has been denied. Further, receipt of the consideration, as averred in the plaint, and execution of the promissory notes and issue of the cheques have been denied. It is further claimed that the suit is false and frivolous and the defendant is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs. 4. Further, receipt of the consideration, as averred in the plaint, and execution of the promissory notes and issue of the cheques have been denied. It is further claimed that the suit is false and frivolous and the defendant is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 4. Whether deceased Hanumant Dass was not a registered money lender? If so its effect? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant executed the demand promissory notes and issued the cheques for consideration, as alleged? OPP. 6. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount or any part thereof? OPP. 7. Whether the defendant is liable to pay future interest? It so in what amount and at what rate? OPP. 8. Relief. 5. The plaintiffs led evidence, however, the defendant failed to lead any evidence despite opportunities, therefore, his evidence stood closed by virtue of order dated 15-5-2002. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 4: 7. Since this issue goes to the root of the case, therefore, it is taken up first for decision. 8. As per the averments in the plaint, the different loans were advanced by the deceased to the defendant on different dates on account of business dealings between them. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit as legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, to arrive at the right conclusion the following questions are requited to be determined: (i) Whether the loans advanced by the deceased to the defendant were such loans to which the provisions of the H.P. Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976 (hereafter referred to as the Act) apply; (ii) Whether the deceased was a Money Lender for the purpose of the Act; and (iii) Whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to this suit instituted by the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased. 9. 9. The expression loan has been defined in sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act as follows: "(8) "Loan" means an advance whether secured or unsecured of money or in kind at interest and shall include any transaction which the Court finds to be in substance a loan, but shall not include— (a) an advance in kind made by a landlord to his tenant for the purposes of husbandry : Provided that the market value of the return does not exceed the market value of the advance as estimated at the time of advance; (b) a deposit of money or other property in a Post Office Savings Bank or any other Bank, or with a company, or with a co-operative society, or with- any employer, as security from his employees; (c) a loan to or by, or a deposit with, any society or association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any other enactment; (d) a loan advanced by or to the Central Government or any State Government or by or to any local body or panchayat under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government; (e) a loan advanced by a bank, a co-operative society or a company, whose accounts are subject to audit by a certified auditor under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; (f) a loan advanced by a trader to a trader, in the regular course of business, in accordance with trade usage ; (g) an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiate Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) other than a promissory note.” 10. In view of the above definition of the expression "Loan", the suit amounts will not be loan for the purpose of the Act if they fall under any one or more of the Clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (9) (supra). The different loans allegedly advanced by the deceased to the defendant, as per the averments in the plaint, were "loans". However, it is averred in the plaint that the defendant "had business dealings with the deceased" and "during the course of such dealings he had taken loans" from the deceased on various dates. The different loans allegedly advanced by the deceased to the defendant, as per the averments in the plaint, were "loans". However, it is averred in the plaint that the defendant "had business dealings with the deceased" and "during the course of such dealings he had taken loans" from the deceased on various dates. A loan advanced in the regular course of business will not be a loan for the purpose of the Act if it is advanced by a trader to a trader in the regular course of business in accordance with trade usages. 11. A trader, as defined in sub-section 13 of Section 2 of the Act, means a person who in the regular course of business buys or sells goods or any other property whether moveable or immovable and will include wholeseller or retail merchant, commission agent, broker, manufacturer, contractor and factory owner. There is, however, no pleading or evidence that the deceased in the regular course of business used to buy and sell goods or other property whether moveable or immoveable and was carrying on the trade in any of the capacities, as aforesaid. Further, there is no evidence even to show that the defendant had borrowed the money in suit as a trader in the regular course of his business as per the trade usages. Thus, in the absence of the pleadings and the evidence, the loans, subject matter of the suit, were not the loans advanced by one trader to other trader in the regular course of business and the transactions are not thus covered under clause (f) of subsection (8) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the suit amounts are loans as defined in sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act. 12. Therefore, the suit amounts are loans as defined in sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act. 12. The expression "Money Lender" has been defined in sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act as follows: "(9) "Money-lender" means a person, or a firm, carrying on the business of advancing loans and includes the legal representatives and the successor-in-interest whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise, of such person or firm, provided that nothing in this definition shall apply to— (a) a person who is the legal representative or is by inheritance the successor-in-interest of the estate of a deceased money-lender together with all his rights and liabilities if such person— (i) winds up the estate of such money-lender; (ii) realises outstanding loans; (ii) does not renew any existing loan, or advance any fresh loan; (b) a bona fide assignment by a money-lender of a single loan to any one other than the wife or husband of such assignor, as the case may be, or any person, who is descended from a common grandfather of the assignor." 13. In view of the above definition, a person or a firm carrying on the business of advancing loans will be a money lender. It is specifically pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that the deceased was an unregistered money lender. Though the defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was a money lender but his being a money lender7 is established in view of the material on record. It is pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the deceased had applied for registration as a money lender and at the time of his death his application was pending. It is admitted by Vijay Kumar (PW-3) that the deceased had applied for registration as a money lender and his application was pending with the Collector Shimla at the time of his death. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased did not have money lending certificate or registration till 13th December, 1996 though he had applied for registration as a money lender in the year 1991 which application was returned to him by the office, therefore, he had moved another application in the year 1994. There is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased was doing any other business except lending money. There is no other evidence on record to show that the deceased was doing any other business except lending money. It is apparently for this reason that he had applied for his registration as a money lender to legalise his business of money lender and to get out of the implications of the Act. 14. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased. In view of the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act, as already quoted hereinabove, the expression money lender includes the legal heirs/successors - in interest of the person and the firm carrying on the business of money lending. Thus, the plaintiffs being legal heirs of the deceased will be money lenders for the purpose of the Act unless they show that they fall under sub-section (9) (a) (supra). 15. However, it is neither pleaded in the plaint nor any cogent or reliable evidence has been led to prove that the plaintiffs have wound up the estate of the deceased and had not renewed any existing loans of the deceased. Therefore, the plaintiffs do not fall within the exception provided by sub-section (9) (a) (supra) and are thus money lenders for the purpose of the Act. 16. Section 3 of the Act reads as under : "3. Therefore, the plaintiffs do not fall within the exception provided by sub-section (9) (a) (supra) and are thus money lenders for the purpose of the Act. 16. Section 3 of the Act reads as under : "3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless money-lender is registered and licensed.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a moneylender for the recovery of a loan, or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be dismissed, unless the moneylender, at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of the application for execution, or at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the application for execution— (a) is registered; and (i) holds a valid licence, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed; or (ii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under Section 10, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application for execution is presented; or (b) if he is not already a registered and licensed money-lender, satisfies the court that he has applied to the Collector to be registered and licensed and that such application is pending: Provided that in such a case, the suit or application shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the money-lender for registration and grant of licence pending before the Collector is finally disposed of." 17. It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that the suit instituted by a money lender who is not registered and licensed as a money lender shall be dismissed. However, where application for registration as a money lender is pending the suit shall not be finally disposed of but the Court shall wait for the final decision in the application meaning thereby that final decision in the suit shall remain stayed till the disposal of the application for registration as a money lender. 18. In the case in hand, it is case of the plaintiffs that at the time of death of the deceased his application for being registered and licensed as a money lender was pending. The deceased admittedly died on 13.12.1996. The suit was instituted on 4.6.1998. 18. In the case in hand, it is case of the plaintiffs that at the time of death of the deceased his application for being registered and licensed as a money lender was pending. The deceased admittedly died on 13.12.1996. The suit was instituted on 4.6.1998. There is no evidence to prove that on 4.6.1998 and thereafter till date the said application is pending. The plaintiffs examined B.L. Dilta (PW-2) to prove that the deceased had made an application for registration as a money lender. PW-2 has stated about receipt of such application (copy whereof is Ext.PW-2/A) in the concerned office on 2.12.1996. However, he has further stated that because of death of the applicant on 13.12.1996, the application was filed after compliance of requirements. Thus, the application stood finally disposed of and is no more pending. It is not pleaded and proved that at the time of the filing of the suit and thereafter any other application for registration as money lender is pending disposal before the competent authority. The plaintiff thus having failed to prove that application for registration as money lender is pending, there is no reason to defer the final disposal of the suit which is apparently liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the deceased Hanumant Dass who advanced the loans in suit was not a registered money lender and the plaintiffs being his legal representatives are also not registered and licensed money lenders and application for registration as money lender7 is not pending. As a consequence the suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Act. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 1: 20. This issue arises out of the preliminary objection No. 1 in the written statement. The defendant, however, has not led any evidence to prove the facts as alleged in the objection. This issue is, therefore, held against the defendant. Issue No. 2: 21. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove this issue. As per the averments made in the plaint and the plaintiffs being legal representatives of the deceased had a cause of action to sue. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant. Issue No. 3 : 22. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove this issue. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove this issue. As per the averments made in the plaint and the plaintiffs being legal representatives of the deceased had a cause of action to sue. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant. Issue No. 3 : 22. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove this issue. In view of the dates of execution of the promissory notes Exts.PW-3/A, PW-3/B, PW-3/C, PW-3/D, PW-3/E and the dates of issue of cheques Exts.P-1 to P-4, the cause of action to the plaintiffs accrued on 4.6.1995 for the first time and thereafter on the dates when further loans were allegedly advanced. The suit has been instituted on 4.6.1998 i.e. within the period of three years. Hence, the suit is within limitation. This issue is accordingly decided in. Issue No. 5: 23. In so far as the promissory notes Exts.PW-3/A, PH-3/B, PW-3/ C, PW-3/D and PW-3/E are concerned, PK-3 has stated that all these promissory notes are in the hand writing of the defendant and had been signed by him in his presence. He has further stated that the receipts regarding receiving the consideration of the pronotes by the defendant Exts.PW-3/A-l, PW-3/B-l and Ext.PW-3/C-l are filled in the hand writing of the defendant and signed by him whereas receipt Ext.PW-3/E-l is in the hand writing of the defendant and signed by him. There is no rebuttal in so far as the statement of PW-3 regarding execution of the aforesaid pronotes for consideration is concerned. Hence, their due execution for consideration, as mentioned therein, is duly proved. 24. There is, however, no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the cheques Exts.P-1 to P-4 were issued by the defendant for consideration received. It is evident from a bare look on these cheques that in the date of the issue of these cheques there are interpolations in all the cheques in so far as figure 6 of the year 1996 is concerned. It is not explained as to under what circumstances these figures have been interpolated. At the time of admission and denial of documents, execution of these cheques has been denied for the defendant. Ravinder Kumar Surya (PW-1) produced by the plaintiff has stated that signatures on Exts.P-1 and P-3 tally with the specimen signatures of Sunil Mehra the defendant but there is slight difference in Exts.P-2 and P-4. At the time of admission and denial of documents, execution of these cheques has been denied for the defendant. Ravinder Kumar Surya (PW-1) produced by the plaintiff has stated that signatures on Exts.P-1 and P-3 tally with the specimen signatures of Sunil Mehra the defendant but there is slight difference in Exts.P-2 and P-4. In the cross examination, he has stated that these cheques were not signed in his presence and that he was not in a position to say whether Exts.P-2 and P-4 are signed by the defendant. Even to the naked eye the signatures on Exts. P-l to P-4 allegedly those of the defendant are clearly different. Exts.P-2 and P-4 prima facie appears to have been signed by the same person but these signatures apparently do not tally with the signatures as on Exts.P-1 and P-3. There is apparent difference even in the signatures as on Ext.P-1 and P-3. Moreover, these cheques are not issued by the signatory in his individual capacity but apparently all these cheques appear to have been signed for Ram Lai and Sons by its caretaker. Said Ram Lai and Sons or the proprietor thereof who is one Mrs. Anju Mehta, as is evident from Ext-PW-1/A, is not a party to the suit and the defendant is mentioned only as a caretaker of the said proprietary concern. It is, thus, not established that these cheques were issued by the defendant in consideration of any liability incurred by him in his individual capacity nor it is established that these cheques are signed by him. 25. PW-3 has stated that his father has advanced loans to the defendant which were secured by issue of cheques by the defendant and such cheques are Exts.P-1 to P-4 and he has identified the signatures of the defendant on these cheques. However, there is no documentary evidence in the form of entries in any accounts book of the deceased to show that the amounts as mentioned in the cheques were actually advanced by the deceased to the defendant. The amounts as mentioned in the cheques are further rendered doubtful by the admission of PW-3 that one months interest as per the agreed rate was paid on the amounts in lieu whereof the postdated cheques aforesaid were issued. Against the cheque for Rs. 1, 00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/ - was paid and Rs. The amounts as mentioned in the cheques are further rendered doubtful by the admission of PW-3 that one months interest as per the agreed rate was paid on the amounts in lieu whereof the postdated cheques aforesaid were issued. Against the cheque for Rs. 1, 00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/ - was paid and Rs. 3,000/- was deducted as interest." It is evident from this admission of PW-3 that the cheques in question were not to discharge, the liability to pay the amount, as mentioned therein, but evidently were issued for more amount than actually received. 26. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the demand promissory notes Exts.PW-3/A, PW-3/B, PW-3/C, PW-3/D and PW-3/E were executed by the defendant for consideration, as mentioned therein, but issue of the cheques by the defendant for consideration, i.e. to discharge any liability, is not proved. This issue is accordingly decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs and partly against them. Issue Nos. 6 and 7: 27. In view of the findings on Issue No.4, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount and the interest, therefore, these issues are held against the plaintiffs. Relief : 28. In view of the findings on Issue Nos. 4, 6 and 7, the suit merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.-