JUDGMENT : G.C. Das, J. - This is an unsuccessful Defendant?s petition against the judgment of the court of appeal below decreeing the Plaintiff?s suit. The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 550/- basing his claim upon a bond executed by the Defendant on 25-8-1953 for a sum of Rs. 380/- on account of his previous loan which was outstanding. The Defendant failed to pay even by instalment as agreed to between the parties. Accordingly the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The Defendant admitted the execution of the suit document. His only contest was that by the date of the execution of the suit-document, that is, 25-8-1953, - Rs. 300/- was not due from him. He took only Rs. 115/- from the Plaintiff in 1950, which he was asked to repay in 1953. He could not pay on account of poverty for which he was threatened with litigation and consequently he executed the suit-document. The Defendant, however, pleaded limitation and contended that the suit was not maintainable under the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 2. The trial judge after consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record dismissed the Plaintiff?s suit. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against this judgment and the appellate court reversed the judgment of the learned Munsif and decreed the Plaintiff?s suit. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Defendant in this Court that the Plaintiff?s suit is not maintainable since he has not complied with the mandatory provisions of rule 11. It states that every plaint in a suit by a money-lenders defined in subclause (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 7 of the Act relevant to the case. In this case it is admitted that the Plaintiff is a registered money lender. It is further admitted that he has not filed a copy of the accounts along with the plaint as contemplated -under rule 11 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. Mr. Pasayat, counsel on behalf of the opposite party contended that the accounts of the Plaintiff are on record. It is further admitted that he has not filed a copy of the accounts along with the plaint as contemplated -under rule 11 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. Mr. Pasayat, counsel on behalf of the opposite party contended that the accounts of the Plaintiff are on record. It transpires that on the objection of the Defendant this document was produced by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never filed an application praying that the accounts now filed may form part of the plaint. He did nothing. Mr. M. S. Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to three decisions of this Court. The 1st case was decided by Rao, J. since reported in Bahadur Thakur v. Bata Sahu 23 C. L. T. 468 wherein the learned judge took the view that the court can reject the plaint for noncompliance with rules 11 and 12 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. No time is also necessary to be given for complying with the requirement as Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC deals with four items of non-compliance on which a plaint shall be rejected. The Money Lenders Act would virtually become nullified if money lenders are allowed to institute suits without following and complying with the rules made thereunder and if courts go on decreeing their suits in spite of non-compliance. The same learned judge in the case of Raghunath Prusti v. Saudhin Khan 24 C. L. T. 28 appears to have slightly gone over the previous decision and held that if the non-compliance of the rules practically become a mockery and the purpose of he Money Lenders Act, would be nullified. When plaints, are filed by money-lenders, it is advisable that the court should call for the particulars necessary to be given according to law. The court should call for these particulars made obligatory on the money-lenders in filing plaints. These particulars should be called for if not given in the plaint, and then? only other proceedings should be taken in the suit. The court should call for these particulars made obligatory on the money-lenders in filing plaints. These particulars should be called for if not given in the plaint, and then? only other proceedings should be taken in the suit. However, in a later decision in Mahendra Mohanty v. Khira Bewa 26 C. L. T. 264 Mohapatra, J. held that the language of the rules makes it fairly clear in a plain reading that the provisions are mandatory and it appears very clear that the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions would defeat the 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 play any fraud or malpractice. 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 he 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. This decision is binding on me. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, I would set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restore that of the learned Munsif on this ground alone. 4. In the result, the rule is made absolute, but there would be no order for costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed