JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a Defendant's petition u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge, Cuttack decreeing the Plaintiffs suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 200/- on the foot of a handnote dated October 29, 1954. Their case was that the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 150/- on the alleged date of the execution of the handnote for his maintenance and payment of certain outstanding loans. The-handnote Ext. 1 was in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 alone, but Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit as the money was advanced from out of the joint family funds. Inspite of repeated demands, the Defendant did not pay the dues under the suit handnote. Hence the suit. The defence was that Plaintiff No. 2 was not connected with the suit transaction and that the suit was bit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. The Defendant denied the suit advance and the execution of the band note and contended that Plaintiff No. 1 having organised a Nach party, the Defendant participated in the same and on the demand of Plaintiff No. 1 be signed a blank brown paper with his thumb mark as security for continuing in the said Nach party. He further averred that Plaintiff No. 1 through his nephew Plaintiff No. 2 got the hand note scribed on the said blank paper and filed the present suit. Two points were raised before the trial Judge-(1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable u/s 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act; & (2) Whether the suit handnote is genuine and supported by consideration or it is only a Kaida or security for the Defendant's continuance in the Nach party said to have been organised by the Plaintiff No. 1. The learned Small Cause Court Judge found both the points against the Defendant and decreed the Plaintiffs suit. 2. It is contended vehemently by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the Petitioner that the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders' Act; Doubtless the suit handnote was executed in favour of Plaintiff No. 1. Admittedly Plaintiff No. 2 is the nephew of Plaintiff No. 1. Both the Plaintiffs are members of a joint family and Plaintiff No. 2 is the Karta thereof. Ghosh on behalf of the Petitioner that the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders' Act; Doubtless the suit handnote was executed in favour of Plaintiff No. 1. Admittedly Plaintiff No. 2 is the nephew of Plaintiff No. 1. Both the Plaintiffs are members of a joint family and Plaintiff No. 2 is the Karta thereof. The licence for money-lending stands in the name of Plaintiff No 2 and bears the registration No. 69 of 1932. After the filing of the plaint, a petition for amendment was filed and extracts from the money lending account book were also filed. The Court by its order No. 9 dated 18-4-1958 allowed the amendment with costs of Rs. 3/- to the Defendant. The Defendant had accepted this cost and a note to that effect had been made in the margin of the order sheet. Accordingly there cannot be any dispute after the amendment that Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were members of the joint family and that the licence for money lending stood in the name of Plaintiff No 2 who is the Karta of the family. Section 2(j) of the Orissa Money Lenders Act defines 'a money-lender as one who advances money in the regular course of business to include a Hindu undivided family'. Plaintiff No. 2 being the Karta in whose name the licence stood should be deemed to represent the family. The trial judge, after having taken into consideration the licence No. 69 of 1952 and the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the suit having been filed by both the Plaintiffs, it should be taken that the requirements of Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act have sufficiently been complied with Mr. Ghosh sought to rely upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Meghraj Tibrawala Vs. Panchu Sahu Teli and Others wherein it was held that a person who advances a loan on a handnote in his name is a person who advanced the loan within the meaning of Section 4, and he cannot be allowed to say that the money came out of somebody elses funds and therefore he is not the moneylender. The question of 'Benami' transaction does not arise on a negotiable instrument of this kind. The question of 'Benami' transaction does not arise on a negotiable instrument of this kind. That case is dearly distinguishable, because the concurrent findings of both the courts were that it was the wife of the Appellant who advanced the money. The certificate f money-lending however stood in the name of the joint family firm. Mr. Ghosh also wanted to rely upon a decision in the case of Mst. Sahdeya Kuar and Others Vs. Rash Behari Singh. In that case again the certificate stood in the name of one Mungeshwar Singh. There is nothing to show in the judgment as to how this Mungeshwar Singh who is described as the Karta of the family stood related to the Plaintiff. Hence this case also cannot be of any avail to the contentions of Mr. Ghosh. Accordingly, in my opinion, the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 3. Coming now to the merits, Mr. Ghosh contended that in view of the finding of the trial Judge that the endorsement on the revenue stamp is suspicious to Plaintiffs should have been non-suited. Plaintiffs had examined three witnesses on their behalf P.W. 1. is the Plaintiff No. 1, P.W. 2 is the scribe and P.W. 3 is a person who is a witness to the passing of the consideration and execution. Plaintiff No. 1 had successfully proved that the document was executed and the consideration did pass. The only question that remained was that there was an endorsement 'Handnote Praman' on the revenue stamp probably the revenue stamp was not available at the time when the handnote was executed which was procured later on and an endorsement was taken. The definite evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is that the endorsement on the revenue stamp was in the hand of the Defendant. True it is that it is in a thicker ink, but that probably is due to the difference in time. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial judge. 4. In the result, this application is dismissed, but there will be no order for cost of this Court. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed