JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The suit was filed for recovery of a Sum of Rs. 375- on the basis of a handnote (ext. 1) dated 15-12-1964: in respect of a loan of Rs. 200-. Plaintiff?s case was that the Defendant paid Rs. 5- and made an endorsement (ext. 18.) on the back of the pro note on 3-12-1957. Rs. 20. was paid on 21-11-1960 and another endorsement (ext. lb) was also made. Plaintiff is a registered money-lender and had taken license for Rs. 10,000- in December, 1954. The license was renewed in 1956-57 for an enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000-. Defendant denied the loan and the execution of the handnote. His case was that he was dealing in bell metal utensils as a hawker by taking those utensils from one Satyabadi Mohanty of his village. He had handed over, by way of security, a piece of paper in which on a revenue stamp he wrote in his own hand that he borrowed Rs. 200. as loan on that day. He admits his signature and thumb impression towards the bottom of the paper. His positive case is that the body of the hand note has been subsequently written in between the two thumb impression given by him. Thus he denies the execution of the hand note in the manner stated above. After the cessation of his dealings with Satyabadi Mohanty, he settled the accounts and wanted back the Kaida. Satyabadi did not return it saying that it was at. Bhingarpur. Defendant believed in him and did not press for its return. The said paper has been utilised as a handnote in the name of the Plaintiff under whom Satyabadi served. 2. The learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the suit on two findings- (i) Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant, after having executed the handnote in his favour, received a sum of Rs. 200 from him; and (ii) The suit loan was not recoverable as it was in contravention of Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inasmuch as the total loans advanced by the Plaintiff till 15-12-1954 were more than Rs. 10,000- while the Plaintiff held a license for advancing loans to the tune of maximum capital of Rs. 10,000-. The subsequent renewal of? the license for Rs. 25,000- in 1956-57 has no retrospective operation. 3. 10,000- while the Plaintiff held a license for advancing loans to the tune of maximum capital of Rs. 10,000-. The subsequent renewal of? the license for Rs. 25,000- in 1956-57 has no retrospective operation. 3. The second finding is based on two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Bholanath Ganpath Ray Firm v. Gopinath Agrawalla and : Ors. AIR 1961 Cutt 21 and Kontari Naiko v. Madhusudan Mollana ILR 1962 Cutt 445. In an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Modhusudano Mollana v. Kontary Naiko and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. L129, the decision in Kontari Naiko v. Madhusudan Mollana ILR 1962 Cutt 445 has been reversed. Their Lordships, after discussion of the various provisions of the Act, made the following observations we hold that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act in this case providing for fixing of the maximum capital which a money-lender can invest in money lending business, it was not open to the State Government to firmly a rule in that Regard and that the rules framed by it about mentioning, in the application, the maximum capital for which the registration certificate was wanted and the mention in the certificate that the amount of the maximum capital for which the certificate is granted, do not lead to the conclusion that the registration of the money-lender will become void if he exceeds the limit of the maximum capital laid down in the registration certificate. Even on the finding that on the date of the advancement of the suit loan, the Plaintiff had advanced loans more than Rs. 10,000- on the basis of a license containing maximum capital of Rs. 10,000-, the suit loan is recoverable and the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. The second finding of the learned Judge cannot be upheld. 4. The learned Judge did not accept the defence version that he handed over Ext. 1 by way of security. In support of his case, only d.w. 2 has been examined. He stated that the Defendant did not put any thumb impression on the paper but merely affixed his signature contrary to the admission of the Defendant himself. Many of the broad probabilities, supporting the Plaintiff?s case and contrary to the defence version, have not been taken into consideration by the learned Judge. He stated that the Defendant did not put any thumb impression on the paper but merely affixed his signature contrary to the admission of the Defendant himself. Many of the broad probabilities, supporting the Plaintiff?s case and contrary to the defence version, have not been taken into consideration by the learned Judge. Defendant admits that on the revenue stamp he made an endorsement in his own hand the following effect- I borrowed two hundred rupees as loan. The endorsement contains the signature and thumb mark of Jogi Sahu (Defendant). The date had also been affixed. In Uchhabananda v. Krushna Kumar 29 C.L.T. 631, on identical facts, the following observations were made- The genuineness of the entire endorsement is admitted before me. On this endorsement, the suit can be decreed. The endorsement may not amount to a promissory note; but it is an unequivocal and clear statement on the part of the Petitioner that on 2-7-1951 he received Rs. 1000- as a loan. The endorsement does not show from whom the loan was incurred. But extraneous evidence is admissible in support of the case that the loan had been taken from Srimati Shovana Basu from whose custody the document is produced. In the face of this admission and statement of the Petitioner, it is not at all necessary for her to forge and fabricate the typed portion. It does not advance the case of the opposite party very far by incorporating in the recitals that the loan was taken from her. The identical principle applies to the facts of this case. The learned Judge failed to take notice of this fact. In the plaint there was a clear averment that on 3-12-1957 Defendant paid Rs. 5- towards interest and made an endorsement in his own hand with his signature and thumb mark. The endorsement is to the effect. "Rs. 5 only was paid towards interest by me as a debtor." Similarly on 21-11-1960 there was a payment of Rs. 20 The endorsement is not in the hand of the Defendant, but he signed and thumb marked it. In the written statement, there was no denial of the genuineness of these endorsements and the payments thereunder. In his evidence in court, the Defendant (d.w. 1) stated- I paid Rs. 20 The endorsement is not in the hand of the Defendant, but he signed and thumb marked it. In the written statement, there was no denial of the genuineness of these endorsements and the payments thereunder. In his evidence in court, the Defendant (d.w. 1) stated- I paid Rs. 5 and made an endorsement to that effect at the instance of P.W. 3 who stated that the handnote was going to be barred. Ext. Ia is that endorsement. With regard to Ext. lb, he stated that on the very day he made the endorsement (ext. la), he put another thumb mark and signature without making any endorsement and over that signature and thumb mark, the payment in Ext. lb has been endorsed. The admission of the fact of payment of Rs. 5- under Ext. la established the genuineness of Ext. 1. The non-denial of the genuineness of these two endorsements in the written statement establishes the correctness of the Plaintiff?s version. The learned Judge indulged in some speculative argument as to the appearance of the handnote. One of the reasons given by him is that the ink has soaked as in the case of writing over an old paper. On a careful examination of the document, I do not find the soaking of it. That apart, the Defendant does not state either in the written statement or in his deposition that he gave a piece of new paper and not an old one. In the circumstances, the inference is based on no materials on record. Another argument advanced was that the foldings had been carefully avoided. This statement is also not correct. In the middle of the document, there are two letters "and". Portions of these letters clearly exist on the fold. The statement of the learned Judge therefore is an error of record. 5. Judged in the aforesaid context, there is nothing in the evidence of p.ws. 1 to 4 to discard the Plaintiff?s version that Ext. 1 was written out and read over to the Defendant and thereafter the Defendant made the endorsement on the revenue stamp and put his thumb marks and signature at two places on receipt of the consideration. The judgment of the learned Judge is contrary to law inasmuch as material pieces of evidence, overlooked by him, would have affected his decision on the merit. 6. The judgment of the learned Judge is contrary to law inasmuch as material pieces of evidence, overlooked by him, would have affected his decision on the merit. 6. The only other question for consideration is whether the finding of fact can be interfered with in Civil Revision. The present revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which lays down that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The scope of this section has been fully explained in Hari Shankar and Ors. v. Rao Giridhari Lal Choudhuri 1962 S.C.D. 579: AIR 1963 S.C. 698 Their Lordships held that the phrase "according to law" refers to the decision as a whole and is not to be equated with error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall decision in the case. The power of the High Court under this section is much wider than its power u/s 115 CPC though it is not as large as its appellate power. As I have already pointed out, the learned Judge exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as he overlooked many material pieces of evidence which would have altered his decision on merits. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff?s version of the case is true and the defence version cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7.In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the Plaintiff?s suit is decreed with costs throughout. Hearing fee of Rs. 50- (rupees fifty).Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed