JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendant is the Petitioner. Plaintiff is a registered money-lender with effect from 30-4-1952. He brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 796/- on the basis of a money bond (ex. 1) dated 13-1-1952 for Rs. 500/-, the interest being at twelve percent per annum. Two payments of Rs. 62/8/- each on 28-2-53 and 21-1-56 were relied upon. Defendant?s case was that he executed ex. 1 but there was no payment of cash and that it was executed towards previous dues of Rs. 400/-. The payments were denied and a plea was taken, that the suit was barred u/s 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act as the Plaintiff, who was a money-lender in regular course of business at the time when the loan was advanced, had not registered himself. 2. Both the courts held that ex. 1 was genuine and for consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the endorsement of payment (ex. 2) on 21-1-56 was not genuine and that the suit was hit by Section 8 of the Act. The lower Appellate court reversed both the findings and decreed the suit. 3. Mr. Misra does not challenge the findings of fact only point urged by him is that the suit is not maintainable u/s 8 of the Act. The lower Appellate court after discussion of the evidence recorded a finding that the Plaintiff was not a money-lender in regular course of business. He discarded) the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2. The onus undoubtedly is on the Defendant to establish that the Plaintiff was a money-lender in regular course of business at the time when the loan was advanced and that the suit would fail as at that time he had not been registered. On the defence evidence admittedly this onus has not been discharged. The defence evidence falls short of the necessary proof. The defence witnesses speak to all loan transactions subsequent to the suit transaction. Subsequent transactions are not admissible in evidence in proof of the fact that the Plaintiff was a money-lender in regular course of business at the time when the loan was advanced. Defendant relies on the admission of P.W. 2 that the Plaintiff is a money-lender in regular course of business. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to support the defence case. Defendant relies on the admission of P.W. 2 that the Plaintiff is a money-lender in regular course of business. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to support the defence case. The statement in the evidence of P.W. 2 relied upon is as follows: Since last 15 to 20 years the Plaintiff is advancing loans in regular course of business. The Plaintiff was charging interest, but I cannot say the rate of interest charged by him. I barrowed money from the father of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff?s father was also lending money. If P.W. 2?s evidence is discarded there is no other evidence on record to support the defence case. The sole point for determination therefore is that if P.W. 2 establishes the defence version. 4. In Civil Revision it is not the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere ordinarily with the findings of fact based purely on the assessment of evidence. Mr. Misra, however, argues that the assessment of evidence by the lower Appellate court is purely based on error of record and is contrary to the admission of P.W. 2. The learned lower Appellate court discusses the evidence of P.W. 2 as follows: It is thus clear from the statement of P.W. that he never borrowed money from the Plaintiff and has no direct knowledge of his money lending business. His statement to the effect that the Plaintiff is a regular money lender since 15 to 20 years is very vague. In the absence of any particular instance of money lending subsequent to 1-4-50 when Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act was introduced, and prior to 13-(sic)-52 when the suit loan was advanced, the vague statement of P.W. 2 cannot be accepted to brand the Plaintiff as a money lender in regular course of business. P.W. 2?s statement that since 15 to 20 years Plaintiff is advancing loans in regular course of business is not a vague statement. It is clear and categorical and the observation is based on an error of record. In order to establish that the money-lending was in regular course of business, it is not necessarily incumbent on the Defendant to prove item by item the loans advanced by the Plaintiff. It is clear and categorical and the observation is based on an error of record. In order to establish that the money-lending was in regular course of business, it is not necessarily incumbent on the Defendant to prove item by item the loans advanced by the Plaintiff. When the defence case was accepted by a witness of the plain tiff by a general statement, the cross-examiner was discreet and ingenious in not further pursuing the matter and destroying the effect of the favourable answer by resorting to questions on loans item by item. The learned lawyer for the Plaintiff should have been careful like a watch-dog and could have tested the veracity of P.W. 2 in cross examination either by declaring him hostile or by re-examination, if permissible in law. The learned Judge was in error in observing that "in the absence of any particular instance of money lending subsequent to 1-4-50 and prior to 13-1-52 the vague statement of P.W. 2 cannot be accepted to brand the Plaintiff as a money lender in regular course of business". Law does not prescribe any particular mode of discharging the onus. It is open to a party to establish his own case through the opponent?s evidence without adducing any evidence on his side. I am therefore satisfied that the learned Judge committed an error of record in explaining away the admission in absolute language made by P.W. 2. One very important circumstance which the learned Judge completely missed is that about 21/2 months after the suit transaction the Plaintiff got himself registered as a money-lender for Rs. 2000/- though the strength of his capital was Rs. 5000/-. As this fact has not been taken into consideration by the courts below, I do not propose to utilise it as a circumstance in this Civil Revision. But as courts of fact, it was their duty to examine all the circumstances transpiring in the case. They should have also examined in what amounts the loans were advanced. A casual money-lender ordinarily advances loans in small bits and not in heavy sums: Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down, circumstances are conceivable that a person advancing big amounts in two or three instances may be treated as a money-lender in regular course of business. A casual money-lender ordinarily advances loans in small bits and not in heavy sums: Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down, circumstances are conceivable that a person advancing big amounts in two or three instances may be treated as a money-lender in regular course of business. They would depend upon the facts and circumstances ought not to have been ignored during the discussion by the courts of fact though it was open to them not to attach any weight to any of these circumstances. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff was a money-lender in regular course of business at the time of suit transaction on the evidence of P.W. 2 alone. The suit is hit by Section 8 of the Act as the Plaintiff had not been registered as a money-lender then. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed