Judgment Tarkeshwar Nath, J. 1. This application by the plaintiff under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment dismissing the suit for realisation of Rs. 338.25 paise, on the basis of a handnote inclusive of interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant as Karta of the family borrowed Rs. 249/- from him and executed a handnote on 16-9-1962 promising to pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month. The defendant did not make any payment and hence the plaintiff made a claim for Rs. 338.25 paise in the Small Cause Court suit instituted by him against the defendant. 3. The defendant opposite party contested the suit on the ground that the handnote in suit was not genuine, valid and for consideration. He alleged that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. 4. The Small Cause Court Judge held that the handnote in suit was genuine, valid and for consideration. But he dismissed the suit on the ground that it was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, inasmuch as, the plaintiff was not a registered money-lender at the time of the advance of the loan in question. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this application in revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant did not at all take a plea in written statement that the suit was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, and, as such, the court below ought not to have gone into that question and dismissed the suit as being not maintainable. The judgment of the court below itself indicates that this point was not specifically taken in the written statement and there was no averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was not a money-lender and that the loan was a casual loan. After having noted these facts, the court below referred to the evidence of the plaintiff (P.W. 3), who had stated that he was a money-lender in the year 1962 and that he had advanced one or two loans in that year. The plaintiff took a licence (Ext. 4) later, on 20-5-1964. But it appears from his evidence that he had advanced the money to the defendant out of friendship. The plaintiff took a licence (Ext. 4) later, on 20-5-1964. But it appears from his evidence that he had advanced the money to the defendant out of friendship. The court below referred to two decisions, one in 1961 B.L.J.R. 746 and the other reported in 1961 B.L.J.R. 135. The court has not given the names of the parties and the first reference is obviously wrong, inasmuch as, the judgment of no case begins at page 746. Whenever a decision is referred to, it is absolutely essential that the names of the parties also should be mentioned. In 1961 B.L.J.R. 135, however, there is the decision in AM, Idan v. Sk. Habibullah which deals with the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and it was held that the initial onus was on the creditor to show that he was not a money-lender by profession. But in that case it appears that a defence was already taken that the plaintiff was not a registered money-lender and, therefore, he was not entitled to a decree on the basis of the mortgage in question. Similar is the position in two other decisions in Deolal Singh v. Brij Behari Singh 1961 B.L.J.R. 319 and Guru Prasad Singh v. Mt. Ramjhari Kuer 1961 B.L.J.R. 539. In these two cases as well a plea was taken in the written statement of each case that the suit was hit by the mischief of Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of transactions) Act, 1939. 6. The court below has not referred to one earlier decision of this Court and two later decisions as well of this Court with regard to the onus in such cases. In Babu Ram Japo Choudhury v. Babu Pathak 1960 B.L.J.R. 477, it was held that it was on the defendant to plead that the suit of the plaintiff was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and prove that the plaintiff was a professional money lender. Untwalia, J. in that case gave the following illustration as well for elucidation of the principles laid down by him: Where a plaintiff files a suit for recovery of say Rs. 300. Untwalia, J. in that case gave the following illustration as well for elucidation of the principles laid down by him: Where a plaintiff files a suit for recovery of say Rs. 300. In that case the plaintiffs suit will fail if the defendant succeeds in showing that the plaintiff is an unregistered professional money-lender unless the latter succeeds in bringing his case within the exception of the notification by showing that in the particular year his advance, even as a professional money- lender, had not exceeded Rs. 500/-. If he succeeds in showing the latter fact, the suit will not fail even though he may be found to be a professional moneylender. That is how I distinguish the two types of cases, and I think the latter example, which I have given, is one of exception, and the onus of proving it lies on the plaintiff, but the former is not an example of any exception. This is an example of defeating the plaintiff on the ground of Section 4 by pleading and proving the necessary facts. The view taken by Untwalia, J. has been affirmed by a Division Bench : in Lakhi Narayan Sao v. Srimati Bhagwati Kuer alias Sohagwati Kuer 1963 B.L.J.R. 361 and the views taken by Ahmad, J. (as he then was) in Md. Idan v. Sk. Habibullah 1961 B.L.J.R. 135, Guru Prasad Singh v. Mt. Ramjhari Kuer 1961 B.L.J.R. 539 and Deolal Singh v. Brij Behari Singh 1961 B.L.J.R. 319 have not been accepted. Their Lordships held that the debtor-defendant had to plead and prove that the creditor-plaintiff was a professional moneylender and, if the defendant proved that fact, the plaintiff, claiming exemption from registration had to prove that he was protected by the notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. 7. I would refer to a still later Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Nilkanth Prasad v. Bhola Nath 1965 B.L.J.R. 774 on this point. 7. I would refer to a still later Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Nilkanth Prasad v. Bhola Nath 1965 B.L.J.R. 774 on this point. The decision in Lakhi Narayan Sao v. Sri-mati Bhagwati Kuer alias Sohagwati Kuer 1963 B.L.J.R. 361 was referred by their Lordships, but they took the view that the observations made in that case with regard to the discharge of onus of proof with reference to Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act were not the basis of the decision and on the other hand they were by way of obiter because by the nature of that suit there was no question of application of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. But apart from it Mahapatra, J., who delivered the leading judgment observed (at page 779) as follows: Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants respondents urged that the plaintiff did not state in his plaint that he was not a money-lender and the Bihar Money Lenders Act was not applicable to him or to his transaction. It is true. In my view, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to state this negative fact. If any one would bring the money Lenders Act against him to play, it will be then for him to urge and prove otherwise. His Lordship further held that the onus of proof or pleading could not be thrust upon the plaintiff from the very beginning and the notification under Section 3 was, no doubt, an exception to the general rule prescribed under Section 4, but the fact whether a person was a moneylender or not was not an exception to Section 4. 8. The position thus is that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Dr. NUkanth Prasad v. Bhola Nath 1965 B.L.J.R. 774, the onus is on the defendant to urge that the suit of the plaintiff was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and then he had to prove that the plaintiff was a professional money-lender, but not registered at the time of the advance in question. If the defendant proves these facts, then the plaintiff may take the advantage of the exception on the basis of the notification issued under Section 3. If the defendant proves these facts, then the plaintiff may take the advantage of the exception on the basis of the notification issued under Section 3. In the case before me, the defendant did not at all take the plea that the suit of the plaintiff was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, and, as such, there was no evidence on his behalf on that point. Accordingly, the defendant did not discharge the onus which lay upon him and the plaintiffs suit could not be dismissed on the ground that it was hit by Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. If the learned Small Cause Court Judge would have been aware of the later decisions of this Court he could not have come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable. 9. In the result, the application is allowed and the judgment of the court below is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs of the trial court only and there would be no order for the cost of this application, as the opposite party has not appeared in this Court.