JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an appeal from the judgment dated 2nd January 1962, of a single Judge of this High Court (Mr. Justice Barman) dismissing an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur, declining to give relief to a judgment debtor (Appellant) under Sections 14 and 15 of the Orissa Money lenders Act. The Appellant entered into an agreement with the Respondent for sale of certain properties and in pursuance of that agreement the Respondent paid him a sum of Rs. 5500/- on 19th April 1948 and another sum of Rs. 300/- on 15th May, 1948, but the Appellant failed to execute a sale deed inspite of the receipt of the said sums. Thereupon the Respondent brought a suit for realisation of the entire sum advanced, together with interest and that suit was decreed for Rs. 6300/-. At the time of execution the Appellant applied for relief under Sections 14 and 15 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act. 2. Both the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned single Judge of this Court held that in the circumstances mentioned above, the money received by the Appellant from the Respondent was not a "loan" as defined in Section 2(1) of the Money-lenders Act and that consequently the Appellant judgement debtor was not entitled to any relief under that Act. 3. In our opinion the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court is correct. The definition of 'loan' given in Section 2(1) of the Orissa Money lenders Act is as follows: 'Loan' means an advance whether of money or in kind, or on interest made by a money lender and shall include transactions bearing interest, executed in respect of past liability and any transaction which in substance is a loan. There must therefore be the relationship of borrower and lender between the parties. Every liability which may arise out of transactions between the parties and which may amount to debts will not necessarily become a loan within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. This distinction was brought out in the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Radha Kishan Chamria and Ors. v. Keshardeo Chanria and Anr. AIR 1957 S.C. 748 where it was held that parties may agree that any money due to one from another may be treated as a loan and the transaction may then become a loan in substance. This distinction was brought out in the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Radha Kishan Chamria and Ors. v. Keshardeo Chanria and Anr. AIR 1957 S.C. 748 where it was held that parties may agree that any money due to one from another may be treated as a loan and the transaction may then become a loan in substance. But here there is absolutely no evidence to show that after the execution of the original agreement for sale there was any other transaction between the parties in respect of that sum from which it could be reasonably inferred that the parties agreed to treat it as a loan. In the Supreme Court case it was held that unpaid purchase money in respect of the sale of immovable property was not a loan. Here however the Respondent wanted refund of the purchase money on the ground that the purchase was not effected in accordance with the contract. But the principle of that decision will apply equally here. We therefore dismiss this appeal but as none appeared for the Appellant to press this appeal there will be no order for costs. Misra, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed