JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the Small Causes Courts Judge, Balasore, dismissing the Petitioner-Plaintiff?s suit for recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of a hand-note. The Plaintiff stated that he was not a professional money-lender but as Defendant No. 1 happened to be his Mahaprasad friend, he advanced him a loan of Rs. 200/- to enable her to buy a piece of land adjacent to her own. The loan was said to have been taken by her for the benefit of her minor sons also (Defendants 2, 3 and 4). As the money was not repaid the suit was brought for recovery of the loan together with interest. The Defendant however denied the taking of the loan but the learned Small Causes Court Judge held that the money was taken as a loan and that it was for the benefit of the minor sons of Defendant No. 1 also (after due execution of the hand-note by Defendant No. 1) but he dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that he failed to comply with Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules. 2. To appreciate this point it is necessary to refer to certain facts. During the cross-examination of the Plaintiff, on 21-9-1962 the following answers were elicited by the Defendant?s lawyer: I know Defendant, No. 1 for the last 5 to 6 years only. At times she took rice loans from me at 1 seer or 1/2 seer for each time. This happened for 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years. The Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 31-9-1962 and the evidence of Defendant No. 1 also was recorded on 2-11-1962. Then on 7-11-1962 the learned Small Causes Court Judge discussed the question as to whether there was contravention of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules and, if so, what further action should be taken by him. He wrote out a lengthy order almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross-examination". At the time she took rice loans from me at the rate of one seer or half seer for each time. This happened 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years. He wrote out a lengthy order almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross-examination". At the time she took rice loans from me at the rate of one seer or half seer for each time. This happened 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years. "This admission on the part of the Plaintiff that he was in the habit of advancing little loans to Defendant No. 1 attracts the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules. He has therefore to supply the information regarding the maximum capital invested in the lending business. But since the office did not point out that the Plaintiff should comply with Rule 12, the suit cannot be dismissed." Then, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anirudha Behera and Another Vs. Dhanu Behera and Another, he called upon the Plaintiff to comply with Rule 12 within 10-11-1962. On 10-11-1962 the Plaintiff filed a petition (purporting to company with the aforesaid order) stating therein that he was not a money-lender and that apart from the suit loan he had no other money-lending transactions at the time of the suit. Defendant No. 1, however, objected to this amendment on the ground that it did not amount to sufficient compliance with the direction given by the Court by its order dated 7-11-1962 and on the other hand it changed the character of the pleading. Then on 25-1-1963 the learned Small Causes Court Judge wrote out a judgment and pointed out that on the admission of the Plaintiff himself in Cross-examination he had advanced small sums by way of rice loans to Defendant No. 1 and that as he failed to include these loans also in the maximum capital, though the Court gave him an opportunity for this purpose, the suit should be dismissed He relied on some observations in the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court which were also reiterated in a subsequent decision in Jugmast Banchhor and Anr. v. Mahatap Singh Jain 27 (1961) C.L.T. 439. In view of these two decisions there can be no doubt be taken by him. He wrote out a lengthy order-almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross. v. Mahatap Singh Jain 27 (1961) C.L.T. 439. In view of these two decisions there can be no doubt be taken by him. He wrote out a lengthy order-almost like a judgment. In paragraph 9 of his order he wrote "of course, the Plaintiff admits in cross. Examination." At the time she took rice loans from me at the rate of one seer or half seer for each time. This happened 10 to 15 times within the past 5 to 6 years". This admission on the part of the Plaintiff that he was in the habit of advancing little loans to Defendant No. 1 attracts the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules. He has therefore to supply the information regarding the maximum capital invested in the lending business. But since the office did not point out that the Plaintiff should comply with Rule 12, the suit cannot be dismissed." Then, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anirudha Behera and Another Vs. Dhanu Behera and Another he called upon the Plaintiff to comply with Rule 12 within 10-11-1962. On 10-11-1962 the Plaintiff filed a petition (purporting to comply with the aforesaid order) stating therein that he was not a money-lender and that apart from the suit loan he had no other money-lending transactions at the time of the suit. Defendant No. 1, however, objected to this amendment on the ground that it did not amount to sufficient compliance with the directions given by the Court by its order dated 7-11-1962 and on the other hand it changed the character of the pleading. Then on 25-1-1963 the learned Small Causes Court Judge wrote out a judgment and pointed out that on the admission of the Plaintiff himself in cross-examination he had advanced small sums by way of rice loans to Defendant No. 1 and that as he failed to include these loans also in the maximum capital, though the Court gave him an opportunity for this purpose, the snit should be dismissed. He relied on some observations in the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court which were also reiterated in a subsequent decision in Jugmast Banchhor and Anr. v. Mahatap Singh Jain 27 (1961) C.L.T. 439. He relied on some observations in the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court which were also reiterated in a subsequent decision in Jugmast Banchhor and Anr. v. Mahatap Singh Jain 27 (1961) C.L.T. 439. In view of these two decisions there can be no doubt about the legal position that where there is non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules and where a party after having been given an opportunity by the Court to comply with the same fails to do so, the suit may be dismissed. Mr. Sinha for the Petitioner therefore properly did not challenge the legal position but urged that there wag substantial compliance with Rule 12. This requires careful consideration as to whether the several transactions of rice loans referred to by the Plaintiff himself in cross-examination should have been included in the maximum capital. Mr. Sinha urged that the Plaintiff was not a professional money-lender, that these small amounts of rice loans were given to Defendant No. 1 because she was his Mahaprasad friend and that there is no evidence to show that these loans carried interest and that consequently the lower court was not justified in assuming that those advances also amounted to "loans" as defined in the Orissa Money-lenders Act. In my opinion it is not open to the Petitioner to advance this argument at this stage. He himself in cross-examination unambiguously admitted that he had advanced rice loans 10 to 15 times times during the past 5 to 6 years. It is true that the expression loan, as ordinarily understood is somewhat wider than the expression as used in the Orissa Money-Lenders Act-See Section 2(i) of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act which requires that the advance should be for interest. It is also true that there is no direct admission by the Plaintiff that the rice loans were advanced for interest, but he gave his answers in Oriya which were recorded in English by the Small Causes Court Judge. The Plaintiff's lawyer could easily have re-examined him with a view to show that the rice loans referred to in cross-examination, were mere advances carrying no interest. This was not done. The Plaintiff's lawyer could easily have re-examined him with a view to show that the rice loans referred to in cross-examination, were mere advances carrying no interest. This was not done. Then again when the Court passed its interim order on 7-11-1962 calling upon the Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money-lenders Rules it expressly referred to the aforesaid answers in cross-examination and further added that it was this admission of the Plaintiff that he was in the habit of advancing rice loans to the Defendant that attracted the provisions of Rule 12. In other words, the Court itself interpreted the expression "rice loans" given by the Petitioner in cross-examination as amounting to 'loans' as defined in the Money-Lenders Act and hence called upon him to comply with Rule 12. This view of the Court was not challenged by the Petitioner in revision. Then again when he purported to comply with this order in his verified petition dated 10-11-1962, he did not state that these rice advances did not carry interest and that consequently they did not amount to 'loans' as defined in the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. His verified petition is delightfully vague and it does not give any reason as to why, notwithstanding the clear order of the Court, he was not including the rice loans in his maximum capital. It may look some what hard that when the due execution of the suit hand note and the payment of the loan have been established and it was further found that the loan was for the benefit of the minor Defendants the suit should be thrown out on such a technical ground. But this unfortunate result was due to the deliberate disregard by the Plaintiff of the order of the Court and he must blame him-self for it. For these reasons I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The revision petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 32.00 (Rupees thirty-two only).Revision Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed