JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Plaintiff is the Petitioner challenging the order of the First Munsif, Cuttack, rejecting an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the CPC to restore Money Suit No. 460 of 1977 which was dismissed for default on 20th of December, 1978. On that day when the suit was called for hearing, Plaintiff had applied for time on the ground that the requisite certificate u/s 18-B of the Money-Lenders Act of 1939 had not been obtained and, therefore, if the suit was taken up for hearing, Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. The learned Munsif rejected the petition and dismissed the suit for non prosecution. In the restoration application, the self-same allegations were made in support of showing existence of sufficient cause. The learned Munsif has rejected the application by saying: ...It is found from the record that on 20-12-1978 the Petitioner had filed a petition on the self-same ground which was rejected. Thus this petition on the self-same ground does not lie. Furthermore, the order-sheet reveals that the petition was dismissed after giving sufficient time. Mere appearance of the party or filing a petition does not amount to appearance, unless he is ready for hearing. Thus, I do not find sufficient reason for the non appearance of the Plaintiff-Petitioner on that day, when called on for hearing. Thus the petition has no merit and is liable for rejection. Further, more, when the Plaintiff has filed the suit, he ought to have acquired all the documents and without a certificate u/s 18(B) Orissa Money-Lenders Act he had no right to prosecute.... 2. In spite of notice, the Defendants-opposite parties do not appear. The further difficulty in this case has been that the records of the original suit have already been destroyed after the lapse of the prescribed period. Therefore, for disposal of the civil revision, the record has been re-constructed. As the Defendants did not appear, a copy of their written statement, however, has not yet been brought on record. 3. Reliance is placed by counsel for the Petitioner on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dibakar Pradhan Vs. Sk. Miskini where the difficulty in obtaining compliance of the provision in Section 18-B or the Money Lenders Act has been indicated. That provision was introduced by amendment of the parent Act. 3. Reliance is placed by counsel for the Petitioner on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dibakar Pradhan Vs. Sk. Miskini where the difficulty in obtaining compliance of the provision in Section 18-B or the Money Lenders Act has been indicated. That provision was introduced by amendment of the parent Act. Some time was lost in making the notifications contemplated in the amending Act. The competent authorities were also not cognisant of their responsibility and timely action was not being taken by which officers. In paragraph 4 of the reported decision, some of the difficulties have been indicated thus: ...Under Section 18B, the legislative intention is that the prescribed authority has to expeditiously dispose of the application when made and is required to forward a copy thereof forthwith as provided in Sub-section (5) to the money lender. The law makers appear to be cognisant of the fact that if the proceeding u/s 18-B is not expeditiously disposed of, the money lenders on whose business restrictions have been imposed by this section may be adversely affected. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the specified authority to dispose of the applications without delay and create no problem for the money-lenders. Learned Munsif obviously lost sight of the fact that the matter was no more under control of the Plaintiff and if he had made an application within time, it was for the competent authority to grant a certificate after scrutinizing the accounts. Counsel for the Plaintiff produce's the requisite certificate which he has obtained after dismissal of the wit. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that non-acquisition of the relevant certificate by the -Plaintiff before the date of hearing of the suit was for a reason beyond his control and if the suit be not restored to file to be disposed of on merit, injustice would be caused to the Plaintiff. 4. I would accordingly allow the application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the CPC and direct that the suit be restored to file for disposal on merit. Since the Defendant has not chosen to appear in spite of notice, there would be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed