Short Note : 1. It was a defendant's appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7-5-1976 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur. Held : The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, is that leave to defend was wrongly refused by the trial Court since triable issues were raised by the defendants. The points raised in the defendant's application for leave to defend the suit were (1) the Hundi on which the suit is based was executed in renewal of an earlier Hundi in favour of the plaintiff's daughter-in-law Gopibai, and (2) the plaintiff and the said Gopibai were both money-lenders who had not complied with the provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act. In short, there were the two points on which permission to defend the suit was sought. The first point was rightly held not to deserve any consideration since it was not the defendants case that the loan taken from Gopibai subsisted after executing the Hundi in plaintiff's favour. The only material question was regarding the plaintiff being a money-lender and consequently the non-compliance of the provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act. In the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the facts necessary to raise this plea are clearly stated. The result is that on proof of these facts stated on affidavit by the defendants, a good defence under the M.P. Money Lenders Act would be available to the defendants. The trial Court has wrongly held that such a plea is meaningless in this suit. Milapchand v. Sundarbai and another, 1977 [1] WN 389, relied on. Appeal allowed.