JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against the decision of a Small Cause Court Judge decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of a loan advanced on the basis of a hand note on 30-10-1950. One of the objections taken to the recovery of the loan was that the opposite party-Plaintiff was not a registered money lender and that consequently the suit was barred by Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. Before the lower court the Plaintiff contended that he had stopped his business of money-lending by the end of 1955 and that he resumed it only in 1960. During the intervening period he merely realised the loans previously advanced, but did not carryon the business of advancing loans. Hence it was urged on his behalf of that on the date of the loan in question, namely, 30-10-1956 the Plaintiff was not a professional money-lender, but only a casual moneylender and that consequently Section 8 of that Act did not operate as a bar. 2. The finding of the lower court is that during the period from the end of 1955 till 1900 the Plaintiff was merely realising the money due to him in respect of the loans previously advanced and the only act: of money-lending during that period was the loan in question. 3. Mr. Ray for the Petitioner urged that even though the Plaintiff might not have advanced loans after 1955 nevertheless as he was realising the money due to him in respect of the previous loans which were advanced in regular course of business, he must be deemed in the eye of law to be continuing the business of money-Tending during that period also. Hence according to him he ought to have got himself registered so as to entitle him to institute a suit in respect of the loan in question. 4 The answer to this depends on a construction of the relevant provisions of the Money Lenders Act. Clause (b) of Section 2 defines the expression "business of money-lending as meaning the business of advancing loans. Here the inclusive definition is not adopted, but the restrictive word "means" is found. Again it refers only to the business of advancing loans and it does not say that the business of advancing and realising loans is also included within the scope of the definition. Here the inclusive definition is not adopted, but the restrictive word "means" is found. Again it refers only to the business of advancing loans and it does not say that the business of advancing and realising loans is also included within the scope of the definition. It is true that in Sub-Clause (1) of Clause (j) of Section 2 it is stated that for the purpose of Section 8 a money-lender means a person who advances loans in the regular course of business of money-lending. But when the expression "business of money-lending" has already been defined in Clause (b) of that section, that definition would apply in construing the same words occurring in Sub-Clause (1) of Clause (j) of that section. That is to say, it must be held as a matter of construction that for the purpose of Section 8 a moneylender means a money-lender who advances loans in the regular course of business of advancing loans. It cannot obviously mean that realisation of loans previously advanced would also be included in the business of money-lending. Mr. Ray also could not cite before us any authority in support of his contention that the words "advancing loans" would also include not only giving of loans but also realisation of the money due on previous loans. The decision reported in AIR 1952 Patna p. 39, on which he has relied, does not go so far. Their Lordships were concerned with the question as to who should be considered to be a person to advance a loan. They held that the mere physical act of giving the money did not constitute advancing a loan and that for that purpose the person who had the right to realise the loan should' be held to be the person who advanced the loan. It is true that advance and realisation of loans are closely interlinked. But when the legislature by using the narrow definition in Clause (b) of Section 2 limited the expression "business of money-lending" to the business of advancing loans only, the Court cannot add to the words by saying that realisation also should be deemed to be part of advancing loans. 5. For these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order for costs of this Court. Das, J. 6. I agree. 7. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed