JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant. Plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 1, 358/10/-on the basis of a promote dated 3-10-1953 (Ext. 9). The principal advanced on the pronote is Rs. 999/-. Out of this, Rs. 160/-was paid in cash, Rs. 506/- was adjusted towards Plaintiff?s dues on a previous pronote dated 26-10-1947 and Rs. 333/-was paid to Gandharba Misra, a creditor of Defendant No. 1. Inspite of repeated demands Defendant No. 1 and his undivided sons did not pay up the loan. Defendant No. 2 is the scribe of the suit pronote. 2. Defendant No. 2 did not contest. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of Defendant No. 1. The other Defendants contested their suit alleging that Defendant No. 2 was addicted to opium and due to difference with the father got the suit pronote forged and the suit has been filed at his instance. A further defence was also taken that the plaint did not comply with the provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and the Rule). 3. Both the courts below concurrently found that the transaction in suit is true and the hand note is genuine. They accepted the Plaintiff's case on merits. This concurrent finding has not been assailed by the Respondents as being contrary to law. The trial court decreed the suit; but the lower Appellate court dismissed it on the finding that it was not maintainable due to non-compliance of Rule 11. 4. The only contention raised on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant is that the learned District Judge should have permitted an amendment of the plaint on the basis of the verbal prayer. Facts necessary for a proper determination of this question must be stated in extenso. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, the contesting Defendants made a bald allegation that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaint was not in conformity with the provisions of the Orissa Money-lenders Act and Rules. No reference was made to any specific section or rule. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, the contesting Defendants made a bald allegation that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaint was not in conformity with the provisions of the Orissa Money-lenders Act and Rules. No reference was made to any specific section or rule. No specific issue was also framed on this question though there is a general issue to the effect "Is the suit maintainable." There is no discussion on this point in the judgment of the trial court who recorded no finding as to whether the plaint was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11. Ground No. 26 before the lower Appellate court was termed as follows: For that the Plaintiff having failed to comply with the provisions of Orissa Money Lenders Act as laid down in Rules 11 and 12 of that Act, the learned Court below should have decided under issue No. 1 that the suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected as pointed out in the Written Statement filed by the Defendants and also as argued before the Court at the close of the case. The learned District Judge in paragraph 29 of his judgment referred to various decisions of this Court and concluded by saying: Having regard to the above trend of decisions I do not think I have any discretion in the matter, viz., to give an opportunity to the Plaintiff to cure the defects by sending the suit back on remand. Plaintiff filed the second appeal on 11-3-1961 and did not file any application for amendment of the plaint so as to bring it in conformity with the provisions of Rule 11. The case came up for hearing before me on 23-2-1963. On 25-2-1963 Plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. There is no doubt that the Plaintiff was thoroughly negligent in not asking for amendment of the plaint even till the date of the hearing of the second appeal. Mr. Dasgupta does not also dispute the gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. It is also clear that at the earliest stage of the litigation the Defendants did not clearly and assertively press their objection due to noncompliance of Rule 11. Mr. Dasgupta does not also dispute the gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. It is also clear that at the earliest stage of the litigation the Defendants did not clearly and assertively press their objection due to noncompliance of Rule 11. The written statement was drafted by Sri Kshetramohan Swain, who is one of the senior most members of the Bar, and it is somewhat difficult to appreciate as to why he did not clearly mention that the violation was in respect of Rule 11. Mr. Swain did not ask the Court to formulate a clear issue on one of the most essential features of the case. There was no divergence of opinion that due for non-compliance of Rule 11 the suit is bound to fail. The legal position is so patent that it is difficult to appreciate as to why Mr. Swain argued this very simple point at the close of the case before the trial Court. All these facts do lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Defendants did not clearly press their objection on this ground with a definite object that it would be pressed at a very late stage when the Plaintiff would be caught unawares and the likelihood of granting permission for amending the plaint would be somewhat difficult. A policy of lying-by was therefore adopted and it cannot be said that until the matter was actually argued before the learned District Judge, the point was clearly brought home to the mind of the Plaintiff. This by itself is no excuse for the Plaintiff who was represented before the lower Appellate Court by Mr. Dasgupta, a senior member of this Bar. It is somewhat surprising that an application for amending the plaint was not filed and a mere verbal request was made for remanding the suit to enable the Plaintiff to make necessary corrections. 5. There was some divergence of opinion in this Court as to the orders to be passed by the Court in case of non-complaince of Rule 11. It is unnecessary to refer to the previous history as the matter has been set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court reported in Anirudha Behera and Another Vs. Dhanu Behera and Another. It is unnecessary to refer to the previous history as the matter has been set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court reported in Anirudha Behera and Another Vs. Dhanu Behera and Another. The position has been settled by holding that though Rule 11 is to be strictly complied with by the money-lender, if there is omission to furnish the required particulars, the Court should in the first instance notice the omission while scrutinising the plaint and give the Plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the same. It is only when the Plaintiff fails to furnish the required particulars despite the opportunity having been afforded the Court would be justified in rejecting the plaint. If, however, the Court fails to notice the omission and the Defendant does not raise any objection before the trial court, it will not be proper for the Appellate and revisional Courts to reject the plaint merely on the ground of noncompliance unless prejudice is shown to have been caused. 6. In this case, the Court did not notice the defect; Defendants did not expressly take the objection; and for the first time specific attention of the Plaintiff was drawn to the omission in the courage of argument before the lower Appellate Court and the Court took a wrong view of the law in rejecting the prayer for amendment thinking that he had no discretion in the matter for giving an opportunity to the Plaintiff to our the defects. Plaintiff must therefore be offered an opportunity to rectify the omission unless prejudice has been caused to the Defendants. 7. Rule 11 prescribes as follows: 11 Every plaint in a suit by a money-lender as defined in Sub-clause (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) the date and number of his registration certificate; (ii) the maximum capital in respect of which he holds certificate, and (iii) a copy of account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act, relevant to the case. Plaintiff has filed an application for amending the plaint to bring it in conformity with Rule 11. The only question to be decided is whether any prejudice would be caused to the Defendants. Mr. Plaintiff has filed an application for amending the plaint to bring it in conformity with Rule 11. The only question to be decided is whether any prejudice would be caused to the Defendants. Mr. Mohapatra lays stress on the following passage in the aforesaid case: The particulars required by Rule 11 are obviously intended to enable the Defendant to put up proper defence and also to enable the Court to decide whether the suit itself is liable to be dismissed u/s 8 of the Orissa Money-lenders not on the ground that the registration certificate is not a valid certificate under the Act. According to him, to establish that at the time of the transaction Plaintiff's money-lending business was for an amount larger than that for which he has obtained the certificate, Defendants are to collect evidence of persons having transactions with the Plaintiff, and by lapse of time of 7 years, he would be greatly handicapped to procure this evidence. This argument does not appeal to me. If it would be accepted, the result would be that in cases of such omission, no amendment can be allowed either at the second Appellate or at the revisional stage. The lapse of time for collection of evidence by itself cannot be a prejudice to be taken into consideration for rejecting the prayer for amendment. Delay by itself is not a ground for refusal of amendment. He has not been able to bring to my notice any other prejudice that would be caused. I would accordingly allow the application for amendment and the plaint be accordingly amended. 8. As the plaint has been permitted to be amended at a very late stage, the Defendants are entitled in law to file further written statement and to get an opportunity for disproving the allegations in the plaint introduced by the amendment. After amendment I would have in the normal course remanded the suit to the trial Court. But as Mr. Mohapatra states before me that he does not want any further opportunity and he cannot substantiate his objection arising out of the amendment and as such no remanded need be made in case I am inclined to take an adverse view against hi contation. In view of his statement, that the Defendants do not want to file further written statement and contest, I pass no order for remand. 9. In view of his statement, that the Defendants do not want to file further written statement and contest, I pass no order for remand. 9. I have already said that the there has been inexcusable delay on the part of the Plaintiff in filing the amendment application at the second Appellate stage. In the circumstances, though Plaintiff?s suit succeeds, he is not entitled to costs. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. Parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed