JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Petitioner. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are brothers living in a joint family of which opposite party No. 1 is the Karta. Plaintiff's case is that on 14-9-1957 Defendant No. 1 (opposite party No. 1) as the Karta of the family borrowed Rs. 200/- from the Plaintiff on executing a hand note at 12% interest with interest at 12%. There was no payment despite repeated demands and the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 251/7/- inclusive of interest. 2. Defendants filed written statement denying the loan and the execution of the hand note and asserted that a blank paper was utilised for creation of the hand note. A further plea was taken that the account book (Ext. 2) did not contain any entry regarding interest payable in respect of the suit transaction. As the accounts were in dereliction of the conditions provided u/s 7 of the Orissa Money Lender Act, the suit is to be dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 11 of the Orissa Money Lenders Rules. 3. The learned S.C.C. Judge rejected the defence plea denying execution of the hand note and borrowing of Rs. 200/- thereunder. He dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 holding that as legal necessity was not proved Defendant No. 2 was not liable. He dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 1 on the ground that the account book (Ext. 2) was not maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a)(i) of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and there was non-compliance with Rule 11 as the accounts produced are not to be treated as accounts u/s 7(a)(i). 4. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner urged that the view taken by the learned S.C.C. Judge was untenable in law. Mr. Misra for the opposite parties supported the judgment on the very grounds advanced by the learned S.C.C. Judge and took up a new point that by the date of the advancement of the suit loan on 14-9-1957 the maximum capital of the Plaintiff's money lending business exceeded Rs. 300/- for which the Plaintiff got himself registered. 5. On the question of legal necessity, the hand note itself recites that it was for the necessity of the family. Defendant No. 2 did not examine himself to deny this fact Defendant No. 1 in his evidence did not assail the existence of legal necessity of the family. 300/- for which the Plaintiff got himself registered. 5. On the question of legal necessity, the hand note itself recites that it was for the necessity of the family. Defendant No. 2 did not examine himself to deny this fact Defendant No. 1 in his evidence did not assail the existence of legal necessity of the family. The evidence of the Plaintiff on the question of legal necessity remains unrebutted. While there is evidence on the side of the Plaintiff corroborated by the recital in the document, there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the Defendants to refute the same. In the circumstances the finding that there was no legal necessity cannot be upheld and on this ground Defendant No. 2 cannot be exonerated. 6. Mr. Mohanty's other contention has also force. Rule 11 of the Orissa Money Lenders Rules is as follows: Every plaint in a suit by a money-lender as defined in Sub-cause (1) of Clause (1) 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. One of the particulars the plaint is to contain is a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act relevant to the case Section 7, Clause (a) is as follows: 7. Every registered money-lender shall in respect of every loan advanced by him after the commencement of this Act and every transaction made by him after the commencement of this Act relating to any loan advanced by him before the commencement of this Act. (a) regularly record and maintain, or cause to be recorded and maintained, an account showing for each debtor. (i) the date of the loan, the amount of the principal of the loan and the rate per centum per annum of interest charged on the loan; (ii) the amount of every payment received by the money-lender in respect of the loan, and the date of such payment; and (iii) any other terms which may be agreed on between the money-lender and the debtor. The account book (Ext. The account book (Ext. 2) has no other defect excepting that it does not contain an entry regarding interest. The argument advanced on behalf of the opposite-parties is that when the accounts do not contain an entry regarding interest they are not accounts in accordance with Section 7; and that if Ext. 2 is not an account u/s 7(a), the copy of the account prescribed under Rule 11 shall be deemed not to have been filed and consequently there has been non-compliance with Rule 11 and the suit must fail on that ground. There is no substance in this argument. Section 19 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act prescribes penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 7 and the penalty is not to be inflicted unless the contravention itself is wilful, and even if the contravention is wilful the Plaintiff would be punished with fine not exceeding Rs. 500; If on the ground of contravention of Section 7 a suit is not maintainable the Legislature would have made clear provision as it has done in the case of contravention of Section 8. I.L.R 1961 Cutt 21 and ILR 1962 Cutt 445 were cited in support of the proposition that even though specific penalty was prescribed u/s 18 of the Act, their Lordships held that the suit was liable to be dismissed for contravention of Section 8. The principle established in those decisions has no application to this case. In those cases Section 8 itself provided that the suit would not lie unless there was due registration. I am of the opinion that though Ext. 2 is not strictly in compliance with the prescription made in Section 7, all the same it is an account within the meaning of Section 7 and there is compliance with Rule 11 when the accounts were filed. The argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is one of circumlocution and the suit cannot fan on that ground. The learned S.C.C. Judge's view on the point is untenable in law. 7. Mr. Misra advanced a new contention that the Plaintiff's registration certificate was for Rs. 3000/- taken on 28-3-1956. In the year 1956 the Plaintiff advanced loans to the extent of Rs. 3695/- Out of which Rs. 200/- was advanced prior to the date of registration. By 14-9-1957 when the suit loan was advanced, the Plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs. Mr. Misra advanced a new contention that the Plaintiff's registration certificate was for Rs. 3000/- taken on 28-3-1956. In the year 1956 the Plaintiff advanced loans to the extent of Rs. 3695/- Out of which Rs. 200/- was advanced prior to the date of registration. By 14-9-1957 when the suit loan was advanced, the Plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs. 335/- in 1957 and more than Rs. 2000/- of the year 1950 remained unrealised by 1957. On these materials Mr. Misra contends that ILR 1961 Cutt 21 applies and the Plaintiff's suit must fail on that ground. A case of this type was not taken up in the written statement and the learned S.C.C. Judge has recorded no finding on this question. In exercise of my revisional jurisdiction I would ordinarily be reluctant to entertain such a new point and would have rejected this contention as being urged for the first time in the High Court. But on perusal of the records at home, and the matter has not been brought to my notice in court, I noticed that in cross examination the Plaintiff himself stated: My money-lending account book shows that on 30-12-1956 I have advanced loan to the extent of Rs. 3695/-. I hold license for investing Rs. 3000/- in the business. This license was issued to me in 1956. I do not remember the amount for which my previous license was granted. There being such a statement of the Plaintiff himself in court, I am inclined to think that justice will be stifled if such a case is not investigated into. On the other hand the Plaintiff is likely to be prejudiced if the matter is finally disposed of in the High Court without his attention being drawn fully to the matter. Accordingly I am of the view that so far as this aspect of case is concerned it must be further examined by the learned S.C.C. Judge and the Plaintiff may also have opportunity for giving his own explanation in Court with a right of cross-examination to the Defendants, Though the point is new as it was not dealt with in the judgment of the learned S.C.C. Judge, I would remand the suit for final disposal in accordance with law on this point alone. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed with costs. Hearing-fee is assessed at Rs. 32/- (rupees thirty-two). 8. In the result, the revision is allowed with costs. Hearing-fee is assessed at Rs. 32/- (rupees thirty-two). The judgment of the learned S.C.C. Judge is set aside and the suit is remanded for disposal in accordance with law. In case the Defendants succeed on this point, they would, however, not be entitled to costs. Final Result : Allowed