JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The Petitioner is the Plaintiff in a Small Cause Court suit to recover Rs. 120/- as the value of twelve (sic) of paddy advanced to the Defendant on the basis of a bond, Ext. 1, on 18-5-1955. Though the interest of 25 per cent was stipulated in the bond as the Plaintiff did not claim any interest in the suit. 2. The Defendant denied execution of the bond and advance of twelve (sic) of paddy and also contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiff was not a registered money lender. 3. The trial court held that Ext. 1 was duly executed and was supported by consideration but dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff had money-lending business from 1954 till now (till the disposal of the suit). The evidence with regard to the so-called money-lending business on which the learned Small Cause Court judge came to the conclusion is as follows; In the year 1954 the Plaintiff advanced two loans to the Defendant in this suit. One loan was repaid and for the other the suit was pending in 1954. The only loan advanced in 1955 was the suit transaction. On 5-5-1956 the Plaintiff got registered as a money lender and after such registration he advanced three loans. The Plaintiff in his evidence also stated that the Defendant works at times for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in his chief examination stated that he was not a money-lender at the time of the suit transaction. On this evidence, the learned Judge dismissed the suit as not maintainable. 4. Mr. Misra the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Plaintiff on the evidence in this case does not come under the definition of a money-lender as contemplated by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 'Money lender' is defined in the Orissa Money-Lenders Act as follows: (1) in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19, a person who advances loan in the regular course of business of money-lending and (2) in the remaining sections, a person who advances a loan. For holding that the suit was not maintainable u/s 8 of the Act it must be shown that the Plaintiff advanced the loan in the regular course of business of money-lending. For holding that the suit was not maintainable u/s 8 of the Act it must be shown that the Plaintiff advanced the loan in the regular course of business of money-lending. The evidence is clear that the only advances which were made by the Plaintiff were the two advances of 1954 to the Defendant and one in the year 1955 to the same Defendant. These advances of loans do not appear in evidence to be advances in the regular course of business of money lending. The Plaintiff himself categorically stated that the Defendant works for him on certain occasions. In the absence of any other money-lending transaction to any other person it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was a money-lender in the regular course of business. The three other transactions of 1956 are immaterial for the purpose of consideration as they were subsequent to the registration of the Plaintiff as a money lender. We are concerned with the state of affairs (and 2) at the time when the loan was contracted. For these reasons I am of opinion that the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge is contrary to law. I would allow the civil revision set aside the judgment and decree the Plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. Hearing fee one gold mohur. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed