JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 7700/ - on the basis of a mortgage bond dated 3-8-1954. 2. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant executed a mortgage-bond on 3-8-1954 and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as the principal amount agreeing to pay the principal and interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, within six months. In spite of repeated demands by the Plaintiff the Defendant did not pay. Hence the Plaintiff filed the present suit. 3. The plea of the Defendant is that he borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2500/ - but executed the document for double the amount as he was in dire need of money and as the Plaintiff was his relation. He paid a sum of Rs. 1000/ - on 7-11-1955, but the Plaintiff has not credited that amount towards the loan. His further case is that the Plaintiff though a registered money-lender had no valid registration certificate as the amount for which he bad sued the Defendant exceeds the maximum capital. 4. The learned trial Court rejected the defence story of payment of Rs. 1,000/ - and held that the Defendant had received Rs. 5,000/ - in cash by executing the mortgage-bond, Ext. A, and the entire amount was due from him. He, however, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Plaintiff had exceeded the maximum capital as provided in the registration certificate, when the suit-loan was advanced. According to him the suit was hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and was not maintainable. 5. u/s 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (Act III of 1939), a money-lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the date on which this section comes into force unless he was a registered money-lender under the Act at the time when the loan was advanced. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act requires a money-lender to specify the main capital for which the registration is asked for. A Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in Kantaru v. Madhusudan Mollana and Anr. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act requires a money-lender to specify the main capital for which the registration is asked for. A Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in Kantaru v. Madhusudan Mollana and Anr. ILR 1962 Cutt 445 held the registration certificate issued to a money-lender is valid only if the highest total amount of the capital sum which remain invested in the money-lending business on a day during the period of registration, does not exceed the maximum-if the total sum exceeds the maximum capital, the registration certificate is not valid under the Act and therefore, the penalty u/s 8 which came into force on 1-4-1950 attracted. 6. The trial Court found that on 3-8-1954 when the Plaintiff advanced the suit-loan, he had already invested about Rs. 50,000/ - while he was authorised to carry on his moneylending business only upto a maximum of Rs. 19,999/ -. He relied upon the aforesaid decision of this Court reported in Kantaru Naik v. Madhusudan Mollana and Anr. 1965 S.C.D. 1129 and dismissed the suit. 7. It may be noted that the decision reported in Kantaru Naik v. Madhusudan Mollana and Anr. 1965 S.C.D. 1129, on which reliance was placed by the trial Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court as will appear from the report in Madhusudan Mollana v. Kantaru Naiko 32 (1966) C.L.T. 1 : 1965 S.C.D. 1129. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Orissa Money Lenders Act providing for fixing of a maximum capital which a moneylender can invest in the money-lending business, it was not open to the State Government to frame a rule in that regard and that the rule framed by it about mentioning in the application, the maximum capital for which registration was wanted and the mention in the certificate that the amount of maximum capital for which the certificate was granted do Dot lead to the conclusion that the registration of the money-lender will become void if he exceeds the maximum capital laid down in the registration certificate. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the amount advanced to the Defendant was in excess of the maximum capital for which the registration certificate was issued. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the amount advanced to the Defendant was in excess of the maximum capital for which the registration certificate was issued. The other finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the Plaintiff stands. In the result, therefore, the Plaintiff's suit is decreed, the appeal is allowed and in view of the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs throughout. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed