JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a Plaintiff's civil revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act arising out of the judgment of the S.C.O., Judge wherein be has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of money on the basis of a hand note dated 21-6-1951. The Plaintiff, in order to save limitation relied upon certain payments. The suit was filed on 3-10-1958. The plea taken by the defence was two fold (i) that he paid all the amount due on the basis of the hand note and (ii) that the suit must be thrown out as contravening the provisions of Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. 2. The learned trial Court negatived the defence plea of payment; but nevertheless he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the provisions of Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act have been contravened. The registration certificate is dated 18-3-1952. Admittedly the Plaintiff is a money Lender and he obtained the registration certificate. It was to be in force for five years till 18-3-1957. Again it was renewed in the year 1959. On a plain reading of the section itself there is no doubt that there has been no contravention of the provisions of Section 8 f the Act. During the time allowed by this statute the Plaintiff had got himself registered as a money-lender. Mr. Rao, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, concedes that Section 8 of the Act has not been contravened. But Mr. Rao has taken up the point that the Plaintiff's suit must fail on account of the contravention of the Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. The provisions of Rule 11 require that is the plaint must contain the date, and number of his registration certificate, (ii) maximum capital in respect of which he holds certificate, and (Hi) a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act relevant to the case. His further contention is that the maximum capital in any event has not been supplied in the plaint and therefore the plaint has got to be rejected. It appears that the number and date of the registration certificate are there in the plaint itself. The account as contemplated under Rule 11 Sub-cause (iii) also was filed along with the plaint. His further contention is that the maximum capital in any event has not been supplied in the plaint and therefore the plaint has got to be rejected. It appears that the number and date of the registration certificate are there in the plaint itself. The account as contemplated under Rule 11 Sub-cause (iii) also was filed along with the plaint. The plaint also contains the details of the accounts, a copy of which was filed along with the plaint also. In my view, the plaint does contain the date and number of his registration certificate and a copy of the account as required under Rule 11, Sub-clause (iii). 3. We are now to see if the plaint is to be thrown of, because in the plaint the maximum capital is not mentioned. The registration certificate indeed does not mention the maximum capital. But nevertheless it is the application for registration which makes a mention of the capital. The Plaintiff called for the application on 1-8-1959 add the application was proved on 14-9-1959. It can therefore be said without any hesitation that the required material was placed on record during the course of the trial. It is relevant to point out that the last payment being 9-6-1957 the cause of action was subsisting for a period to expire on 9-6-1960. So sufficiently before the cause of action had been extinguished and the claim is barred by limitation the Plaintiff had taken steps to place the relevant materials on record and also successfully placed the relevant materials on record. In my view, there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 11 and therefore the Plaintiff's suit must succeed. 4. Accordingly the Civil Revision is allowed wit costs throughout. Hearing-fee is fixed at Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty). Final Result : Allowed