JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J :- This application in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1980 of the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madhubani. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of Rs. 2000/- as principal 15792/2,6.100 and Rs, 465/- as interest on the basis of a handnote, The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment of the trial court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court the petitioner has moved this court in revision. 3. The plaintiff has been non-suited on two counts and the claim has been rejected, on account of non-compliance of the provisions of section 7(5) of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The second ground held against the petitioner-plaintiff was that he not having pleaded in the plaint that he was a registered money lender he could not be permitted to prove that he was a registered money lender and a decree cannot be passed in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agitated both the points before me in this revision. 4. Both the grounds urged by the lower appellate court are substantial and the suit was rightly dismissed. In regard to the provisions of section 7(5) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assent of the President of India was given only on 20th March, 1975, but the suit had been filed prior to it on 14.2.1975 and on that basis it was contended that the provisions of section 7(5) of the Act, would not be a hindrance to the plaintiff in regard to his claim. Reliance was placed upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad Sah Vs. Surya Prasad Sharma and others in which a Division Bench of this Court hold that the provisions of section 7 (5) of the Act, were not retrospective. His reliance, however, in my view, upon the Division Bench case is misplaced. Section 7 (5) of the Act, does not enjoin or does not bar the institution of a suit if a copy of the relevant extract from the register of account has not been annexed to the plaint. His reliance, however, in my view, upon the Division Bench case is misplaced. Section 7 (5) of the Act, does not enjoin or does not bar the institution of a suit if a copy of the relevant extract from the register of account has not been annexed to the plaint. It only provides that a claim beyond the entries made in the register of accounts shall not be maintainable. This it would be open to the plaintiff at the stage of evidence to file a copy of his register of accounts relating to the defendant at any time after the institution of the suit. The provisions of section 7(5) of the Act, relates to a matter of evidence, and, in that view of the matter, the plaintiff should have filed in evidence (after the 20th March, 1975) a copy of register of accounts relating to the loan in question. That procedure was not barred for the plaintiff and that would not be giving retrospective effect to the provisions of section 7(5) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the decision in the case of Raj Narain Prasad Sah (Supra) can be of no avail to the petitioner. 5. The second submission urged on behalf of the petitioner also lacks substance. In the Case of Smt. Fulo Devi Vs. Mangto Maharaj and others a Full Bench of this court observed as follows :- "So far as the first paragraph of section 4 of Bihar Act, VII of 1939 is concerned, the impediment is on the courts in entertaining suits by money lender for recovery of loans advancet1 by them, unless such money lenders are registered under the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1938, when the loans were advanced. The expressions "Money-lender 'and' loan' are both defined in Section 2 of the Act, and although these expressions have been given particular connotation by judicial decisions unless a plaintiff pleads in his plaint facts which would make the suit prima facie entertainable by the court, it can hardly be said that the plaintiff has discharged the duty put upon him by order VII, Rule 1(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure". It was thus laid down that in order to succeed a plaintiff must plead that he is a money lender. It was thus laid down that in order to succeed a plaintiff must plead that he is a money lender. If he does not plead to that effect be will be shut out from adducing any evidence showing that he was a registered money lender. It is, therefore, essential for a plaintiff to succeed in a suit for money on the basis or a loan to plead that he is a registered money-lender. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has not pleaded in his plaint that he is a registered money lender. In that view of matter, the judgment of the learned lower appellate court is justified on both the courts. 6. For the reasons stated above there is no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32/-. Application dismissed.