JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: Nazir, Respondent No. 3, borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- from the Petitioner Amar Nath on 1st July, 1974, on an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. On that very day, he executed a promissory note and a receipt in favour of the Plaintiff Petitioner. Since the amount was not paid by Nazir, the Petitioner filed a suit No. 30 of 1976 for recovery of Rs. 12,492/-in the court of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, on the basis of the promissory note and the receipt date 1st July, 1974. In the suit, only two issues were framed, firstly, as to whether Nazir borrowed Rs. 9,000/- on an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month and executed the disputed promissory note and the receipt, as alleged, and, secondly, to what relief is the Plaintiff entitled. 3. The trial court, after examining the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the promissory note and the receipt were executed by Nazir and that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- had been advanced by the Petitioner to the Defendant Nazir on 1st July, 1974. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 27th July, 1977. This judgment has become final, as no appeal has been filed against the said judgment. 4. Thereafter, the Plaintiff Petitioner filed an application for execution of the said decree. In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor filed objections u/s 47, CPC The main objection was that no decree can be passed against the judgment debtor in the absence of the registration as a money lender. It was further pointed out that the loan in question had not been shown in and as such, the decree passed in the suit was without jurisdiction and a nullity. These objections were considered by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur. By an order dated 4th January, IV79, the objections were allowed. The execution was dismissed and it was held and the decree holder was not entitled to recover the amount through execution and the property attached was, consequently, released. Aggrieved by this decision dated 4th January, IV79, a revision was filed before the District Judge, Saharanpur. By an order dated 4th January, IV79, the objections were allowed. The execution was dismissed and it was held and the decree holder was not entitled to recover the amount through execution and the property attached was, consequently, released. Aggrieved by this decision dated 4th January, IV79, a revision was filed before the District Judge, Saharanpur. The revision came up for hearing before the 4th Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. By an order dated 14th January, 19b0, the revision was also dismissed. The Petitioner has now Challenged the orders dated 4th January, 1979 and 14th January, 1980, by means of the present petition in this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, who have vary ably argued this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has urged that once Form 10 prescribed under the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) had been accepted by the Registrar in which the advance given to Nazir had been specified, the court below acted without jurisdiction in holding that the decree was a nullity and that it could not be executed. 7. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that in view of the amendment made in Section 26 of U.P. Act No. I of 1979, the acceptance 'by the Registrar of his application for registration was valid and the mere tact, that no reasons have been given by the Registrar for condo nation of delay in filing the application for registration with some delay, could not be sufficient to hold the registration to be invalid. 8. The third contention raised by the learned Counsel further is that, in any case, even if the order registering the application made by the Petitioner money lender was invalid for any reason, the same having not been challenged, became final and the decree which had been passed in his favour could not be declared a nullity unless the registration had been set aside by a competent court of law. 9. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has very vehemently contended that the proviso, which has been added to U.P. Act No. I of 1979 in Section 26 of the Act categorically laid down that there has to be an application by the money lender for condo nation of delay, the Registrar has to consider the circumstance for condo nation of delay and he has to specifically record a finding that sufficient cause has been made out for condo nation of delay and in the absence of an application and the recording of the satisfaction by the Registrar, the registration cannot be treated to be a valid registration in the eye of law entitling the decree holder to execute the decree which otherwise would be a nullity in the eye of law. 10. It is necessary to state the relevant facts which are relevant for considering the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. 11. The U.P. Money Lending Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 1st September, 1976, by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers u/s 1(3) of the Act. Section 26 of the Act provides that every money lender carrying on the business of money lending from before the o mincemeat of this Act shall submit to the Registrar, a statement in the prescribed form within a period of three months from the date of such commencement. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act further provides that the statement referred to in Sub-section (1) shall contain the particulars of debts due to each money lender and of deposits made with him and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-section (4) of Section 26 provides the effect of not complying with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26. It lays down that no moneylender shall be entitled to claim any amount from a debtor in respect of any loan advanced before the commencement of this Act, unless the name of such debtor and the amount due from him has been specified in the statement referred to in Sub-section (l). 12. From a reading of Section 26 of the Act, it is clear, therefore, that the debt has to be registered with the Registrar. 12. From a reading of Section 26 of the Act, it is clear, therefore, that the debt has to be registered with the Registrar. If it is not so registered then the creditor cannot claim the amount from the debtor even though there may be a decree against the debtor. 13. In exercise of the powers u/s 28 of the Act, the Governor has framed Rules. Rule 19 lays down the manner in which the statement referred to in Section 26(1) of the Act has to be submitted. Form 10 has been, prescribed for the said purpose. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rules 19 provide that the statement shall be submitted in duplicate and shall contain the particulars of all the debts and deposits of a money lender. The said statements shall then be consecutively numbered in the office of the Registrar. Sub-clause (4) is relevant which empowers the Registrar to put his dated signature on every page of the statement and shall also put his official seal thereon. The other sub-clauses relates to keeping the said register in custody of the registrar so as to avoid fabrication at any subsequent stage. Rule 10, therefore, clearly provides that in order to have a valid registration, Form 10 submitted by the creditor has only to be signed by the Registrar and then kept in his custody. 14. It appears that after the promulgation of the Act, certain creditors could not register their claims within the period of three months, as provided by Section 26 of the Act. The legislature, consequently, added a proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1979, which reads as under: Provided that the Registrar may on an application by such money lender, for sufficient cause condone the delay and accept the statement submitted within three months from tire date of the commencement of the U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending (Amendment) Act, 1978. 15. In the instant case, the Petitioner decree holder had submitted Form 10 on 30th November, 1976. In this form, the name of the debtor Nazir alone was shown. The particulars of the debt had not been given. In view of Section 26 read with Rule 19, the form was, consequently, incomplete. Thereafter, on 16th December, 1976, another Form 10 was submitted by the Petitioner and sent to the Registrar. In this form, the name of the debtor Nazir alone was shown. The particulars of the debt had not been given. In view of Section 26 read with Rule 19, the form was, consequently, incomplete. Thereafter, on 16th December, 1976, another Form 10 was submitted by the Petitioner and sent to the Registrar. But since the Registrar had no power to extend the period of limitation within which the registration had to be made, the application lay in the office of the Registrar. 16. After the coming into force of U.P, Act No. 1 of 1979, on 19th March, 1979, the clerk concerned in the office of the Registrar recorded a note to the effect that in view of U.P. Act No. I of 1979, the statement in Form 10 submitted by the Petitioner earlier be accepted and order to form part of the record. This note was signed by the Registrar on 21st March, 1979. It is not disputed that there was no separate application for condo nation of delay in filing the amended form 10. It is also not disputed that there was no speaking order passed by the Registrar condoning the delay in filing Form 10, which was filed with a delay of 16 days. The question, therefore, arises whether such a registration shall be treated as valid or not in the eye of law. 17. The proviso to Section 26 of the Act, which I have already quoted above, only lays down that the Registrar may, on an application made by the money lender, for sufficient cause, condone the delay and accept the form. It is not provided that the application should be a written application. An oral application can be held to be a sufficient compliance of the proviso. The fact, that the said note, which stated the reasons for the delay having been signed by the Registrar impliedly shows that the Registrar had condoned the delay in filing Form 10. By the mere fact that specific reasons have not been given in the order, it cannot be said that the Registrar has not applied his mind to the question of condo nation of delay in accepting Form 10. By the mere fact that specific reasons have not been given in the order, it cannot be said that the Registrar has not applied his mind to the question of condo nation of delay in accepting Form 10. The signing by the Registrar of a note of the office where the reason for the delay was there and the ultimate registering of the said Form 10, in my opinion, complied with the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act, 18. As I have already indicated in detail above Rule 19 only provides for the Registrar signing Form 10 and to keep the said record in his custody. The legislative intent behind this is only this that a bona fide debt should be recorded and registered with the Registrar and nothing more. Once the Registrar had accepted Form 10 and registered the debt in his record, the mere fact that, technically, express reasons having not been given or a written application having not been made does not take away the effect of the registration made under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. In my opinion, consequently, the first two submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are well founded. 19. So far as the third contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, that too, in my opinion, has substance. It is not disputed that the loan in question had been mentioned in Form 10 and the same had been accepted and registered by the Registrar. There was no challenge to the said registration. It is a matter between the creditor and the Registrar. The debtor cannot take the benefit of any irregularities in the process of registration once the registration has been accepted as valid. 20. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 4th January, 1979 and 14th January, 1980, are hereby quashed. The objection of Nazir, Respondent No. 3, is dismissed. The execution shall proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed no bear their own costs.