Judgment:
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. Though notices were served on the respondent herein on 29-8-2002, the respondent has not chosen to put in her appearance through a counsel and hence this court proceeds to dispose of the matters on merits. As the point involved in both the matters is one and the same, both these revisions are disposed of by a common order.
2. The respondent herein i.e., the plaintiff, filed two suits for recovery of certain amounts basing on two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein (defendant). After settlement of issues, the petitioner/defendant filed interlocutory applications in those two suits for framing of an additional issue as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is a moneylender and she has any money lending license. The Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, by his docket order dated 28-6-2002 dismissed those applications in the following manner:
'Petition filed by D (defendant) to add one more issue. The D's (defendant's) contention is that since P (plaintiff) has filed for recovery of money is another case, there is a presumption that P (plaintiff) is doing money lending business. D (defendant) wants this to be included as another issue. But apart from another case against the same person, there is no other evidence adduced before court to prove P (plaintiff) is a money lender. So I.A. is dismissed. For P (plaintiff) evidence call on 16/8.'
3. Admittedly in the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant, it was stated that the plaintiff i.e., the respondent, is a big money lender and lending huge amounts for high interest without money lending license. In the draft issues also which were submitted on behalf of the petitioner, an issue as to whether the plaintiff being moneylender can file the suit without money lending license, was raised. In spite of the specific averment made in the written statement and also in the draft issues submitted on behalf of the defendant, the court below settled the issues but, however, the said issue as to whether the respondent is a money lender and the suit filed without any money lending license is maintainable or not, was not framed.
4. Rule 3 of Order 14 C.P.C. deals with matters from which issues may be framed. According to Rule 3 (b), an issue may be framed basing on the allegations made in the pleadings or answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit. When there is a clear and categorical averment in the written statement filed by the defendant that the respondent/plaintiff is doing money lending business without any license and an issue to the above effect was also included in the draft issues raised on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, the court below ought to have framed an additional issues on that aspect. When it failed to do so, the said factum was brought to the notice of the court below through the present applications and the court below refused to include the said issue as one of the issues. In my considered opinion, court below is not justified in doing so. For the foregoing reasons, the orders under revisions are liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, the revisions are allowed and the docket orders dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, in the two suits i.e., O.S. No. 44 and 50 of 2001, are hereby set aside. The Special Assistant Agent is hereby directed to frame an additional issue in both the suits as to whether the plaintiff is a money lender or not. No costs.