JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff?s suit for recovery of Rs. 1240/- on a mortgage bond is not maintainable by reason of non-compliance with Rule 11 (iii) of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules, 1939. Both the Courts below dismissed the Plaintiff?s suit as not maintainable. 2. The Plaintiff?s claim in this suit is said to have arisen thus On August 3, 1956 Defendant No. 2 Brahmani Bewa on behalf of herself and as guardian of her minor son Defendant No. 1 Biswambar Malik executed a deed of mortgage for a sum of Rs. 1240/-. The suit mortgage bond Ext. 1 is said to be a combination of certain previous mortgage deeds executed by Defendants as stated hereunder. 3. On November 2, 1953 the Defendants executed a mortgage deed Ext. A for Rs. 600/-. While the dues thereunder had remained unpaid they executed another mortgage Ext. B on July 5, 1954 discharging the earlier mortgage. Again on April 11, 1955 another mortgage deed Ext. D was executed for Rs. 650/- which was in discharge of the mortgage of July 5, 1954. The Defendants executed another mortgage deed Ext. C on August 25, 1954 for Rs. 500/-. While the dues thereunder had remained unpaid the Defendants executed a further mortgage deed on May 13, 1955 Ext. E for Rs. 650/- in discharge of the earlier mortgage. All these deeds are said to be mortgages by conditional sale. The suit mortgage deed Ext. 1 which is the last among the spires of mortgages executed by the Defendants is a combination of mortgage deeds Ext. D and E for Rs. 650/- each-total amount being Rs. 1300/-. It is said that a sum of Rs. 60/- had been given up from the said dues under the previous mortgage deeds and accordingly the Plaintiff filed this suit for Rs. 1240/- after deducting the said sum of Rs. 60/-. It is thus evident that the transactions between the parties were somewhat of involved nature. 4. On merits the Defendants took various points including inter alia that the Defendants had not received the full consideration as mentioned in the mortgage deeds and further that the repayments made by the Defendants from time to time had not been accounted for by the Plaintiff. 4. On merits the Defendants took various points including inter alia that the Defendants had not received the full consideration as mentioned in the mortgage deeds and further that the repayments made by the Defendants from time to time had not been accounted for by the Plaintiff. That apart, the Defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit itself by reason of non-compliance of Rule 11 (iii) of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules. 5. Rule 11 (iii) provides that every plaint in a suit by a money-lender as defined in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (j) of Section 2 shall, in addition to any other particulars that may be required by any law, contain, among other particulars: a copy of the account referred to in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act relevant to the case. Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act referred to in the aforesaid rule (omitting the immaterial portions) reads thus: Every registered money-lender shall in respect of every loan advanced by him after 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. 6. In the present case the Plaintiff did not furnish any copy of the account as required by Rule 11 (iii). This point of non-furnishing of the account was taken in paragraph 3 of the written statement. Notwithstanding the point thus taken defence, the Plaintiff did not furnish the accounts as required by law. In fact the learned trial Court found: the Plaintiff?s case is that he never maintains any account. The learned lower appellate Court also rightly took into consideration the position that the Plaintiff as P.W. 2 in his evidence had categorically stated that he did not maintain any money-lending account. In view of the admitted position that no accounts have been kept by the Plaintiff, no useful purpose will be served by giving the Plaintiff a further opportunity to furnish the accounts which do not exist. 7. In view of the admitted position that no accounts have been kept by the Plaintiff, no useful purpose will be served by giving the Plaintiff a further opportunity to furnish the accounts which do not exist. 7. Then the question is Will the Defendant debtors be prejudiced by such non-furnishing of accounts in this case? My answer is yes. It is clear from the judgments of the Courts below that several part-payments have been made by the debtors to the Plaintiff-creditor on different dates. It is evident that several mortgage bonds were executed in favour of the Plaintiff one after the other purporting to be in discharge of the previous ones. The transactions between the parties were of complicated nature. If the accounts were furnished they would have shown how adjustments have been made and part payments accounted for. All these matters cannot be decided without reference to the accounts. It is therefore a case where furnishing of accounts by the Plaintiff was prominently necessary. There fore undoubtedly the Defendant debtors have been prejudiced by non furnishing of the accounts. 8. The Defendants had raised the point at the earliest stage in their written statement. In view of the alleged repayments and adjustments, there is the necessity for scrutiny of accounts to see whether the Plaintiff?s alleged claim is correct. In my opinion in such a case non-compliance of Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 11 is very material, especially when the Defendants raised the objection at the first stage in the written statement. I am of opinion that the Defendants have been prejudiced by non furnishing of the accounts as required by the Rule. This my view is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anirudha Behera and Anr. v. Dhanu Behera and Anr. 27 C.L.T. 230 : ILR 1961 Cutt 430 9. In this view of the case, the decision of the Court below dismissing the Plaintiff?s suit as not maintainable is upheld. This appeal is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed