JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The second appeal is by the unsuccessful Plaintiff against a decree of affirmance. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 3,570/- on the basis of a promissory note. 2. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendant took a loan of Rs. 1,800/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 30-5-1963 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18th p.c. p.a. on demand. On 10-5-1966, the Defendant paid only a sum of Rs. 10/-, another sum of Rs. 10/- on 27-4.1969 and a further sum of Rs. 10/- on 9-4-1972 towards the loan endorsing such payment on the back of the handnote but despite repeated demands he failed to repay the balance. 3. The Defendant admitted the advance of loan of Rs. 1800/ -and execution of the promissory note, but pleaded that he had repaid to the father of the Plaintiff Rs. 1000/- on 10-5-1966. Rs. 820/- on 27-4-1969 and Rs. 1200/- on 9-4-1972 Thus, according to the Defendant he had repaid Rs. 3000/- in all, against the principal amount of Rs. 1800/-. The contention of the Defendant was that the suit was foisted against him on false allegations as he refused to sell a bullock to the Plaintiff in the month of Baisakh of the year 1973. 4. The Trial Court believed the defence plea and passed a part decree for Rs. 600/- only in favour of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the learned District Judge disbelieved the defence plea of repayment of Rs. 3000/-, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 5. The suit was filed on 15-5-1978 and was decreed in part as per decree dated 28-11-1975. The appea1 before the District Judge was dismissed on 30-3-1977 and the present second appeal was preferred on 3-10-1977. Section 18-B was inserted in the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939 by Orissa Act 54 of 1975 Sub-section (1) of Section 18-B provides that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification, require the money lenders to produce before such, authority and by such date as may be specified in the said notification all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans. Sub-section (2) requires the prescribed authority to scrutinise the documents with a view to determining g if the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the moneylender the prescribed authority is to pass an order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the said certificate. Sub-section (8) provides as follows: (8) No Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any Joan advanced prior to the date of the order referred to in Sub-section (2) unless the particulars thereof are contained in the said order and all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated. The lower appellate Court held that the suit was not maintainable since the Plaintiff had not complied with the aforesaid provisions. 6. According to the definition in Section 2(q) of the Act, the word "suit" includes an appeal. In the present case, it appears that the Plaintiff-Appellant filed the application for necessary certificate in January. 1977 and the certificate was granted to him in January, 1978. He has produced a copy of the order passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Cuttack in M.L. Case No. 10/77. The particulars of the suit loan have been mentioned in item 1 of the schedule given at the foot of the order. Thus the Plaintiff-Appellant has satisfied the conditions of Section 18-B of the Act during the pendency of the appeal. The plea of payment taken by the Defendant has been negatived by the lower appellate Court on cogent grounds. The Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree for Rs. 3570/- with pendente lite and future interest at 6 p.c. p.a. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decisions of the Courts below ale set aside and the Suit is decreed for Rs. 3,570/- together with pendente lite and future interest at 6 p.c. p.a. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs incurred in this Court. Final Result : Allowed