JUDGMENT : Misra. J. 1. Defendant No. 1 took a loan of Rs. 500.00 from Defendants No. 2 and 3 on 1-2-1957 by executing the suit hand-note (ext. 1). Defendants No. 2 and 3 transferred the suit hand-note for Rs. 671.87 p. on 18-12-1959 by a sale deed (ext. 2) in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit denying to have taken any loan from Defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 2 is the son of Defendant No. 1 who is the paternal aunt of the Plaintiff and the maternal aunt of the Defendant No. 1. Though the execution of the suit hand-note was admitted, passing of consideration thereunder was denied. A defence was also taken that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3 were money lenders in regular course of business and the suit was not maintainable as they were not registered and that they have not complied with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Orissa, Money-Lenders Rules. Originally the trial court had decreed the suit for Rs. 665.00. In appeal the case was remanded for returning a finding on an issue to the effect "Whether the Plaintiff has complied with the Rules 11 and 12 framed under the Orissa Money-Lenders Act?" The trial court after remand returned a finding that the Plaintiff had duly complied with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and that he was not a money lender in regular course of business. Before the lower appellate court, the findings on other issues were not challenged. In other words, the Defendant No. 1 did not challenge the findings that consideration has passed under the suit pronote. The only question that was canvassed before the lower appellate court was that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3 were money lenders in regular course of business and should have been registered under the Orissa Money-Lenders Act and that as they had not been registered, they could not comply with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act and that as such the suit was liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable. The learned lower appellate court upheld the contention that the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were money lenders in regular course of business and accordingly dismissed the suit due to noncompliance of Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules. The learned lower appellate court upheld the contention that the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were money lenders in regular course of business and accordingly dismissed the suit due to noncompliance of Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules. Against that judgment the Civil Revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Misra contends that the learned lower appellate court exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. He supplied a chart of the various loans that were advanced by the Defendants No. 2 and 3 and the loans advanced by the Plaintiff. A copy of this chart was supplied to Mr. G.R. Rao who did not dispute its correctness. The judgment would therefore proceed on the basis of the admitted data so supplied. 3. Loans advanced by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (Defendant No. 2 has no separate status): Chinu, Nitai and Bhikari took Rs. 20- each by way of loan from Defendant No. 3 in the year 1958. These were all the loans advanced by Defendant No. 3 besides the suit loan of Rs. 500- advanced on 1-2-1957 under Ext. 1. Thus, before the date of the advance of the suit loan Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not advance any other loan. On the aforesaid facts there is no dispute that the Defendants 2 and 3 were not money lenders in regular course of business on the date of the advancement of the suit loan. It is only in the case of a money lender who advances loan in regular course of business, registration certificate is necessary. Section 8 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act enacts that a money lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him unless he was registered under this Act at the time when such loan was advanced. u/s 2(j)(1), a money lender u/s 8 means a person who advances loan in regular course of business in money lending. The suit transaction ?was the first loan advanced by Defendants No. 2 and 3 and they did not advance the loan to Defendant No. 1 in regular course of business of money lending on the date of the suit transaction. Section 8 of the Act would have no application if the Defendants 2 and had brought the suit for recovery of the loan. Section 8 of the Act would have no application if the Defendants 2 and had brought the suit for recovery of the loan. In a suit filed by them they would not have been called upon to satisfy the requirements of the Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules. They would have merely complied with Rule 12. Under Rule 12, in a suit filed by money lender, every plaint in addition to any other particulars required by Jaw must contain the particular namely the maximum amount of capital of Plaintiff?s money lending business. In the plaint this particular has been supplied. Mr. Ranga Rao accepts the position that if Defendants No. 2 and 3 were the Plaintiffs, the suit would have been maintainable and could have been dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 11 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Rules or for non-registration of Defendants 2 and 3 under the Act. 4. Would the answer be in any way different if the promissory note is assigned in favour of a person who was a money lender in regular course of business on the date of the suit transaction? 5. I would now examine the position on the assumption that the Plaintiff was a money-lender in regular course of business on 1-2-1957. To appreciate the question posed, Section 2(j) may be quoted: (j)"money-lender" means (1) in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19, a person who advances loan in the regular course of business of money lending; and (2) in the remaining sections, a person who advances a loan; and in both cases of (I) and (2) shall include a Hindu undivided family and the legal representatives and successors in-interest, whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise, of such a person who advances a loan. It is thus apparent that a money lender under the Act includes his assignees. It is fantastic to contend that the position of the Plaintiff-assignee would be worse than that of Defendants No. 2 and 3, the assignors. On the date of the suit transaction, Defendants No. 2 and 3 were not required to get themselves registered under the Act as they were not moneylenders in regular course of business. The Plaintiff-assignee steps into the shoes of Defendants No. 2 and 3. On the date of the suit transaction, Defendants No. 2 and 3 were not required to get themselves registered under the Act as they were not moneylenders in regular course of business. The Plaintiff-assignee steps into the shoes of Defendants No. 2 and 3. In respect of the suit transaction, helped not be required to get himself registered even though he might have been a money lender in regular course of business. If the Plaintiff was a money lender in regular course of business on the date of the advance of the loan, in respect of the amounts he himself advanced on that date his suit would be hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, if he had not been registered. That ban would not however prejudicially affect, him in respect of the assignment of a loan which was advanced by a person who was not a money lender in regular course of business on the date of the advancement of that loan. Rights and liabilities as to the maintainability of the suit u/s 8 of the Act must be determined with reference to the date of the loan. This, conclusion emerges on a construction of the plain language of the definition of the money lender. Conversely if a money lender in regular course of business who did not get himself registered advanced a loan and that loan is assigned in favour of a person who was not a money lender in regular course of business and who is not required under law to get himself registered a suit by the assignee himself would be hit by Section 8 of the Act. The learned Advocate for both the sides stated that they were unable to cite a single decision which would throw any light on the question in issue. 6. On the facts of this case also the Plaintiff cannot be said to be a money lender in regular course of business. Loans advanced by Plaintiff before 1-2-1957: 1. In 1953 Plaintiff purchased document from one Padma under which she had advanced loan to one Murali. The Plaintiff brought Money Suit No. 202 of 1954 for Rs. 135- and received payment of the dues under a Receipt Ext. F. 2. The Plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 100- to one Jogeswar under Ext. D on 15-7-1952. 3. The Plaintiff?s son advanced Rs. The Plaintiff brought Money Suit No. 202 of 1954 for Rs. 135- and received payment of the dues under a Receipt Ext. F. 2. The Plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 100- to one Jogeswar under Ext. D on 15-7-1952. 3. The Plaintiff?s son advanced Rs. 500- to Kunja Sahu?s mother in 1953-54. 4. Padma took a loan of Rs. 300- from Plaintiff in 1955. The learned lower appellate court and Mr. Rao had relied on-these 4 items. Of these, the last 2 items cannot be treated as Plaintiff?s loan. As would appear from the chart the third item was a loan advanced by Plaintiff?s son. There is no evidence to show that the son advanced the loan from the father?s fund or on behalf of the father. That item must therefore ruled out of consideration. The 4th item is also not a loan. The Plaintiff stated in his evidence to the effect: "I have taken some lands from Padmabati on lease in 1955 and advanced her Rs. 300- for that purpose." Clearly this is not a loan but advance of premium towards a lease. There is no other evidence that this item was a loan. The 3rd and 4th items must be excluded from consideration. The only evidence of advancement of loan by the Plaintiff prior to the date of the suit transaction are the loans of Rs. 100- advanced in 1952 and purchase of a document in 1953. These 2 items do not establish that the Plaintiff was a money lender in regular course of business on the date of the suit transaction. On the facts of this case also the Plaintiff is not a money lender in regular course of business and the suit filed by him is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge missed the point as he did not keep the correct law in view. He exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity and his decision is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and the Plaintiff?s suit is decreed with costs throughout. The Civil Revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed