JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a civil revision filed by the Defendant u/s 115 of the CPC against the appellate judgment of Sri B.K. Patra, A additional District Judge of Cuttack, as a second appeal is barred under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 370/- on the basis of a handnote dated 5th July, 1953 for a principal amount of Rs. 340/-. The defence was two-fold: (1) that the suit handnote was not for consideration and further that there was no due execution of the hand note, the Defendant having presented only a blank sheet of paper containing the thumb impression of the Defendant by way of security, and (2) that the suit must be dismissed on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of Rules 11 and 12 framed under the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. 2. Both the courts below have decided the first point against the defence contention. This being a decision on the basis of question of fact, Mr A.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, very fairly conceded that he cannot press the first contention i but nevertheless he concentrates upon the second contention that the Courts below exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularity in not having dismissed the suit as being not maintainable on account of the non compliance of the provisions of Rules 11 and 12 framed under the Orissa Money-lenders Act. 3. It is to be made clear at the outset that in paragraph 4 of the plaint the Plaintiff accepts that he is a money-lender and that he has been registered under the provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act He has also made the position absolutely clear while making the same statements in his cross-examination. But nevertheless the plaint is conspicuously silent as to the particulars required under the provisions of Rules 11 and 12. But nevertheless the plaint is conspicuously silent as to the particulars required under the provisions of Rules 11 and 12. It will be worth-while to quote Rules 11 and 12 in detail: Rule n.-Every plaint in a suit by a money-lender as defined in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (j) of Section 2 shall, in addition to any other particulars that may be required by any law, contain the following particulars: (i) date and number of his registration certificate; (ii) maximum capital in respect of which he holds certificate, and (iii) a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section I of the Act relevant to the case. Rule 12-Every plaint filed in a suit by a money-lender as defined in sub-clause of Clause (j) of Section 2 shall in addition to any other particulars that may be required by any law contain the following particulars, namely, the maximum amount of capital of the Plaintiff's money-lending business. As I have already mentioned, besides the aforesaid statement in paragraph 5 of the plaint, none of the above particulars required, under Rules 11 and 12, are mentioned any where in the four corners of the plaint. The language of the Rules makes it fairly clear on a plain reading that the provisions are mandatory and it appears to me very clear that the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions would defeat principle underlying the provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act which is for the protection of the debtors and for not allowing the money-lenders to lay any fraud or malpractices. In this view of the matter, therefore, the position is clear that in a suit where the Plaintiff acknowledges himself to be a money-lender and states that be has obtained the certificate required under the Act, the Plaintiff is bound to mention the further particulars required under the aforesaid rules and if he does not mention the aforesaid particulars, his suit cannot be maintained. 4. In these circumstances, therefore, the Courts below manifestly have exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in allowing a decree in favour of the Plaintiff where the suit, under the law, was not maintainable. Accordingly the suit is dismissed. The Civil Revision is allowed. In the circumstances of the case as the Defendant's contention that the hand note was not for consideration had failed, the parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Accordingly the suit is dismissed. The Civil Revision is allowed. In the circumstances of the case as the Defendant's contention that the hand note was not for consideration had failed, the parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Opposite party No. 4, who is a minor, is represented by Mr. P.V. Ramdas. Mr. Ramdas was present during the course of the hearing of this Civil Revision and he is entitled to withdraw the costs deposited in Court. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed