JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff's suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,448/ - from Defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of a promissory note (ext. 1) executed by Defendant No. 1 on 10-6-1957. Defendant No. 1 admitted execution, but denied receipt of consideration. His defence is that he received some old gold ornaments from the Plaintiff for making new ornaments. Gold being of considerable value, Plaintiff took the suit pro-note by way of security. He prepared the ornaments and returned the same within two months. Despite repeated requests, Plaintiff did not return the promissory note. The maintainability of the suit was attacked the ground that on the date of the loan, Plaintiff had no' money-lending licence, though he was registered money-lender. Defendant No. 2's liability was denied. 2. Both the Courts concurrently found that the promissory note is genuine, for consideration and was not given by way of security and that Defendant No. 2 was not liable. These findings were not assailed by Mr. Sinha for the Respondents. The suit was however dismissed on the ground that on the date of the suit loan, Plaintiff had no licence, though he was a money lender in regular course of business. 3. The relevant facts as to why Plaintiff is said to have no money-lending licence on the date of the advancement of the loan may be stated. Plaintiff obtained a registration certificate on 14-4-1952 for the maximum capital of Rs. 9,999/ -. On 23-5-1955, he obtained another registration certificate for the maximum capital of Rs. 60,000/ -. The registration fee payable under Rule 4 of the Rules framed u/s 2 and of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and the Rules) for the maximum capital of Rs. 9,999/ - is Rs. 12/8/ -, and for Rs. 20,000/ - and over is Rs. 25/ -. Out of the fee of Rs. 25/ - payable for the registration certificate dated 23-5-1955, Rs. 12/8/ - was paid in cash and, credit was given to the registration certificate fee of Rs. 12/8/already paid by the Plaintiff for the first registration certificate dated 14-4-1952. The suit loan was advanced on 10-6-1957 which is after the expiry of five years from the date of the first registration certificate. 4. On the aforesaid facts, the controversy between the parties may be stated. 12/8/already paid by the Plaintiff for the first registration certificate dated 14-4-1952. The suit loan was advanced on 10-6-1957 which is after the expiry of five years from the date of the first registration certificate. 4. On the aforesaid facts, the controversy between the parties may be stated. Plaintiff contends that the second registration certificate dated 23-5-1955 granted u/s 5 of the Act was in force for five years from the date on which it was granted. The suit loan having been advanced during this period, Plaintiff had a valid registration certificate and the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. The argument on behalf of Defendant No. l is that the second registration certificate and that the life of the second certificate is co-extensive with the first and must expire on 14-4-1957. After that date, he being a money-lender in regular course of business the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Act. The rival contentions require close examination. 5. The main plank of the Respondents' argument is Bholanath Ganapat Ray Firm v. Gopinath Agarwalla and Ors. ILR 1961 Cutt. 21 This decision was followed in Kontaru Naiko and Ors. v. Madhusudano Mollana ILR Cutt. 444, which has been reversed in Madhusudano Mollana v. Kontaru Naiko and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 1129 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Orissa case). In none of these cases, however, the question whether the second certificate of higher denomination granted during the currency of the first certificate amounts to an amendment of the first and not an independent certificate to be valid for five years from that date was considered. 6. Sant Saran Lal and Anr. v. Parsuram Sahu alias Kishan Lal Sahu and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 1117, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bihar case) arose under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. In the Orissa case, their Lordships observed that the relevant provisions of he Bihar Money-Lender Act 1938 and the Bihar(Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1938 are practically similar to the relevant provisions of the Orissa Act and that what they said in the Bihar case appropriately covered the contentions of the parties in the Orissa case. This case, therefore, be examined with reference to the observations of their Lordships in the Bihar case. 7. This case, therefore, be examined with reference to the observations of their Lordships in the Bihar case. 7. Before so doing, the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules may be noticed Section 5-Registration of money-lenders and registration fee: (2)(a) Every application made under Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by the prescribed registration fee and shall be presented to the Sub-Registrar within whose jurisdiction the principal place of business referred to in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) is situate. (b) Any such application, which is not accompanied by the prescribed registration fee or does not contain the particulars specified in Sub-section (1), shall be summarily rejected. On receipt of an application under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) the Sub-Registrar shall, except where a certificate previously granted to the applicant has been cancelled u/s 18 and the order of cancellation is in force, grant a registration in the prescribed form to the applicant. Section 6-Durati of Registration Certificate: A registration certificate granted u/s 5 shall, unless sooner cancelled u/s 18, be in force for five years from the date on which it is granted. Section 8-Suit for recovery of loan maintainable by registered money-lenders only. 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 registered under this Act at the time when such loan was advanced. Rule 4. The amount of registration fee payable u/s 5 of the Act shall be as given below: If the maximum capital in respect of which an application for certificate is made is- Rs. A.P. (a.) Up to Re. 5,000 ... 500 (b) Rs. 5,001 to Re. 9,999 ... 1280 (c) Rs. 10,000 to Re, 19,999... 2000 (d) Rs. 20,000 and over ... 2500 Rule 5(1) The registration certificate referred to in Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act shall be in "Form III" of the Schedule annexed. During the currency of a registration certificate a application may be made for a registration certificate of a higher denomination and the provisions of rules i to 5 shall, as far as may be, apply to it, credit being given to the registration fee already paid by the applicant. "2. The maximum capital for which the certificate is granted is... ... ..."; Seal of Sub-Registrar Registered No ... .. "2. The maximum capital for which the certificate is granted is... ... ..."; Seal of Sub-Registrar Registered No ... .. Sub- Registrar Post Office. District. 8. Thus a registration certificate granted u/s 5 of the Act shall u/s 6 be in force for five years from the date on which it is granted. The second certificate granted on 23-5-1955 is valid till 23-5-1960. During the currency of a registration certificate, an application may be made under the 5(2) for another registration certificate of a higher denomination. The certificate 80 granted is not a renewal of the first and has no retrospective operation. On the plain language of Section 6 and Rule 5(2), the certificate so granted for higher denomination becomes valid for five years. 9. Mr. Sinha contends that Rule 5(2) is ultra vires the Act. Before examining this contention it would be profitable to notice the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the Bihar case. Both the Orissa and Bihar cases related to the question whether a suit by the money-lender for recovery of dues under a loan for higher denomination is maintainable on the basis of a registration certificate of a lower denomination The answer was given in the affirmative. Their Lordships' conclusions may be noticed in their own words: (i) Rule 3 requiring the money-lender to mention in his application the maximum amount of loan i.e. the total amount of loans which may remain outstanding on any day during the period of the validity of the registration certificate and Rule 3(3) providing for an application for the registration certificate to mention the amount of loans for which the certificate for wanted, cannot, therefore, be said to be rules made for carrying out the purposes of the Act but were rules made for fiscal purposes. The registration fee payable under Rule 4 is graded according to the maximum amount of loans for which the certificate was wanted. (ii) The classification of money-lenders for the purpose of registration fee can be no justification for placing any limit on the maximum amount of loans they could have outstanding on a certain day. (iii) The mere fact that the money-lender contravened any of the requirements of the licence or of any rule or even any provision of the Act does not mean that his registration as a money-lender u/s 5 of the Act was an improper registration. (iii) The mere fact that the money-lender contravened any of the requirements of the licence or of any rule or even any provision of the Act does not mean that his registration as a money-lender u/s 5 of the Act was an improper registration. (iv) Under the provisions of the Act it is the de facto registration of the money-lender which entitles him to sue for the Loan and not the contents of the registration certificate. 10. If the mention of the maximum capital of the money-lending business of a money-lender in the application for registration and in the registration certificate is not enjoined upon by the Act and is redundant and, for that reason, the relevant rule is ultra vires the Act, then the registration fee payable under Rule 4 graded according to the maximum amount of loan cannot affect the validity of the registration certificate. The question of maximum capital is closely inter linked with the question of graded fees. The observations of the Supreme Court enumerated above would apply with full force to the question of graded fees though Rule 4 may not be ultra vires the Act. The grading of fees for different amounts of maximum capital is merely for fiscal purpose and cannot affect the validity of the registration certificate. Even if Rule 5(2) had not been enacted providing for credit being given to the registration fee already paid by the applicant, the validity of the registration certificate issued u/s 5(4) cannot be questioned. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to examine the further question whether grading of fees in Rule 4 is ultra vires the Act. 11. The next question for consideration is whether Rule 5(2) is ultra, vires the Act. The Act does not prohibit the issue of a second certificate during the currency of the first action 6 merely declares that a registration certificate issued under the Act is in force for a period of five years. Section 18 deals with powers to cancel the registration certificate on ground of fraud and has no relevance to the present topic. There is also no provision in the Act that the first certificate would stand cancelled the moment the second certificate is granted. Doubtless a second certificate would not generally be granted so long as the first certificate is in force. There is also no provision in the Act that the first certificate would stand cancelled the moment the second certificate is granted. Doubtless a second certificate would not generally be granted so long as the first certificate is in force. The provision in Rule 5(2) has-made consistent with the other provision that graded registration fee is payable for different amounts of maximum capital. Even if the Supreme Court had not strike down the two Orissa decisions the grant of a second registration certificate for higher denomination cannot be renewal of the first and by virtue of Section 6 of the Act, it would be in force for a period of five years. 12. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sinha as an observation of the learned Chief Justice in bholanath Ganpat Ray Firm v. Gopinath Agarwalla and Ors., to the effect that if it exceeds that amount, unless he takes immediate steps to get the certificate amended after paying the necessary fees, as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Orissa Money- Lenders Rules, the certificate ceases to be a valid one. The word "amended" used in the aforesaid sentence was by inadvertence. It finds no place in Rule 5(2). The present question was not under examination before their Lordships. In the leading judgment of Mr. Justice Das this word "amended" finds no place. These observations have no binding force and more so after the decision was overruled by the Supreme Court. The matter was brought to the notice of the learned Chief Justice in Kontaru Naiko and Ors. v. Madhusudano Mollana2. He observed that- Hence any discussion as to how far some of the observations in Bholanath Ganpat Ray Firm v. Gopinath Agarwalla and others1, would apply is academic. Mr. Sinha's contention on the strength of the two decisions cannot be accepted. For reasons discussed, Rule 5, (2) is not Ultra vires the Act. Even assuming that it is ultra vires Act grant of a second certificate during the currency of the first IS not prohibited by the Act. If, one such is granted of the actual construction would be that the first certificate would subsist for five years and second also for five years from the date on which it is granted. For the period they overlap, both the certificates would remain in force. 13. If, one such is granted of the actual construction would be that the first certificate would subsist for five years and second also for five years from the date on which it is granted. For the period they overlap, both the certificates would remain in force. 13. On the aforesaid discussion, I am of opinion that the second registration certificate was in force for a period of five years from 235-1955. The loan having been advanced on l0-6-1957, the suit is not hit by Section 8 of the Act. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a decree. 14. In the result, the judgments of the Court below are set aside and the suit is decreed. Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the Trial Court and the lower appellate Court. Parties to her their own costs of this Court. The second appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed Final Result : Allowed