JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a Defendant's petition u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, arising out of a suit for recovery of money on the basis of hand note executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 6th June 1953. The defence was one of denial of the transaction and also that the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, as the Plaintiff had not got himself registered as a money-lender. 2. The learned Munsif found the suit hand note to be a genuine transaction for consideration, but he dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 8 of the Orissa money-Lenders Act was a bar. The lower appellate court, however, while agreeing with the learned Munsif that the suit transaction was a genuine transaction for consideration, reversed the second finding of the trial court and accordingly decreed the Plaintiff's suit on finding that it was not a case of "loan" as defined ill Section 2 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, and as such, Section 8 of the said Act had no application. 3. Both the courts below have indeed come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is a registered money-lender since 1954 and that the Plaintiff is a money-lender in regular course of business. For the purpose of the suit if it is found that it is a case of loan, indisputably the suit will be hit by the provisions of Section 8. It is pertinent to quote the definition of "loan" as mentioned ill Section 2(i) of the said Act: (i) loan means, (a) an advance whether of money or in kind on interest made by a money-lender; (b) shad include a transaction on a document bearing interest executed in respect of past liability and, (c) any transaction which, in substance, is a loan.... It is clear from the recitals of the handlnote that there is no stipulation for payment of interest. It is also admitted by both parties that it is not a transaction in respect of any past liability. The first two clauses therefore may be ignored for the purpose of consideration of this case. Mr. Pasayat, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, relies upon Clause (c) in support of his contention that it is to be taken as a case of loan. The first two clauses therefore may be ignored for the purpose of consideration of this case. Mr. Pasayat, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, relies upon Clause (c) in support of his contention that it is to be taken as a case of loan. The relevant circumstances which may have a light to throw upon the determination of the question, whether, in substance, it is loan or not,- are: It is significant to note that not only there was no stipulation for the payment of interest in the handnote, but in the body of the plaint it is categorically stated that the Defendant was to pay the principal amount only and that the Plaintiff had demanded the principal amount only from time to time; the Plaintiff did not also claim any interest in the body of the plaint from the date of the suit hand-note till the date of the suit, nor had he also paid any court-fee for any interest; it is to be noted also that the parties are neigh hours and the money was advanced for the purpose of purchasing bullocks by the Defendant. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that there was no motive for gain on the basis of the transaction. Indeed Clause (c) is wide and elastic, but nevertheless there must be some significant circumstance to indicate that the transaction is, in substance, a loan. In my view, the motive for gain on the basis of the transaction is a very important feature to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether it is a case of loan or not Mr. Pasayat strongly relies upon the provisions of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to contend that even though there is no stipulation for interest in the body of the transaction, the Plaintiff could claim interest and that interest, in law, was payable and as such, as contended by him, the transaction is to be deemed as, in substance, a loan. In my view, merely because interest is payable by virtue of the provisions of some other Act, the transaction, under consideration, cannot be taken to be, in substance, a loan in view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly for one of the decisive features that there was no motive for gain on the basis of the transaction. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, has rightly decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 4. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, has rightly decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 4. The Civil Revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee is assessed at Rs. 75/- (Rupees seventy five). Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed