Pleading defects under Money-Lenders Rules are curable absent prejudice, so dismissal is not automatic.

Non-compliance with Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939 was treated as a curable plaint defect rather than an automatic ground for dismissal. The Court held that the rules, read as supplementary to the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory in the relevant sense: the use of "shall" does not by itself make every omission fatal, and the proper test is legislative intent and the consequence of breach. A plaintiff should ordinarily be given an opportunity to supply missing particulars, and dismissal follows only if the defect persists after such opportunity or if real prejudice is shown. As no prejudice was established, the decree was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules, 1939 by a registered money-lender necessarily requires dismissal of the suit, or whether the omission is curable and a decree can be sustained in the absence of prejudice to the defendant.

Analysis: The Rules requiring particulars in the plaint were treated as supplementary to the Code of Civil Procedure provisions governing pleadings. The Court held that the use of the word "shall" does not by itself make the requirement inexorably mandatory in the sense that every omission must nullify the suit. The governing test was the legislative intent and the consequence of the breach. By analogy with provisions such as Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, the Court reasoned that a plaint defect of this nature should ordinarily be pointed out so that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to supply the missing particulars. Dismissal is justified only if the omission persists after opportunity is given, or if real prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: Rule 11 and Rule 12 were held to be directory in the relevant sense, not mandatory so as to compel dismissal in every case of non-compliance. As no prejudice was shown in the present case, the decree below was sustained and the appeal failed.

---