JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This revision is at the instance of the Plaintiff who brought the suit against the opp. party on 9-4-1980 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,640.48 paise. The case of the Petitioner, briefly stated, is that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,176/- to the opp. party on a promissory note on 20-4-1976 of which an amount of Rs. 100/- was paid on 11-4-1977 endorsing the payment on the back of the promissory note. The opp. party did not challenge the execution of the promissory note or the loan but contested the suit on the basis that it was not entertainable since the Petitioner had not obtained a licence from the Tahasildar as provided u/s 3 of the Orissa (Scheduled Areas) Money Lenders? Regulation, 1967 (Orissa Regulation 2 of 1968) (for short, called the Regulation). Such plea by the opp. party was accepted by the learned Additional Munsif to dismiss the suit. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which having been rejected on the selfsame ground, he has come up in revision before this Court. 2. The opp. party has not appeared before this Court in spite of notice. Mr. Ashok Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner urges that both the Courts below have failed to consider the essential fact to be determined in the case, as to whether Surada, which is the ?place where the promissory note was executed, was included as a Schedule area ?On the date of execution of the promissory note. The plea that the suit was hit by the provisions of Regulation had been taken in the written statement and in appeal, as it appears from the grounds thereof, the Petitioner had specifically raised the question,that the suit should not have been dismissed without evidence that suit village was within the scheduled areas. 3. Regulation 2 was a beneficial legislation to grant relief to debtors in the scheduled areas of Orissa. Section 1 of the Regulation came into force at once whereas the other provisions came into force on 15-11-1969. Section 3 of the Regulation directed that no person shall, after the appointed day carry on business of money lending at any place within the scheduled areas unless he has obtained a licence. Section 1 of the Regulation came into force at once whereas the other provisions came into force on 15-11-1969. Section 3 of the Regulation directed that no person shall, after the appointed day carry on business of money lending at any place within the scheduled areas unless he has obtained a licence. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the bar contained in Section 3 of the Regulation was not applicable to Surada when the promissory note was executed on 20-4-1976 since by then it has not been included in the scheduled areas. It is apparent that if the place where the promissory note was executed was not a schedule area when the execution took place, the prohibition for carrying on money lending business at such place would not be applicable to such transaction. 4. In support of his contention Mr. Mohanty has relied upon the Scheduled, Areas (Part A States) Order, 1950 (Constitution order No. 9). In the Order different areas in Part A States were declared as the Schedule areas. In the Order, so far as the Orissa was concerned, Pandakhol Mutha of Surada Mulia fees was included as a Scheduled area: An amendment of the Constitution Order No. 9 of 1950 was made by the Scheduled Areas (State of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977 in which the entire Surada Tahasil, excluding Gazalbadi and Gocha Grama Panchayats of Ghumsar Sub-Division was declared as the Scheduled Area. Mr. Mohanty urges that since the entire Surada Tahasil was not declared as the Scheduled Area in 1950 and the amendment including Surada Tahasil excluding certain areas came only in 1977, the provision of Section 3 of the Regulation was not applicable to the suit transaction on the date of the loan and hence the suit should not have been dismissed as not entertainable. 5. As a proposition of law the submission made by Mr. Mohanty is well founded. The suit filed by the Petitioner would not be condemned for a reason which was itself nonexistent when the ?promissory note was executed. 5. As a proposition of law the submission made by Mr. Mohanty is well founded. The suit filed by the Petitioner would not be condemned for a reason which was itself nonexistent when the ?promissory note was executed. But there is no adequate material to hold that the promissory note was executed at a place which was not included in the Scheduled Areas on the date of the transaction and hence before a finding is reached the question, it would be necessary to determine as to what is the site of the execution of the promissory note and whether such locality was a declared area on the date the suit transaction took place. Ordinarily for determination of the questions it would have been necessary to -remand the suit but however in view of the conclusion reached otherwise as discussed hereafter, such course need not be followed. 6. Even apart from the question as to whether the area was a Scheduled Area or not, the dismissal of the suit on the basis that a licence had not been obtained was also not authorised. The Regulation does not create a bar for entertainment of a suit for the reason that the Plaintiff has not obtained a licence u/s 3 of the Regulation. Even though obtaining a licence is a pre-requisite u/s 3 to carry on money lending business yet absence of such a licence does not prevent a suit to be instituted. Section 21 of the Regulation provides for imposition of punishment for carrying on business without a licence, but however save and except such penalty there is no further provision which debars the institution or entertainment of a suit. Consequently, in the absence of a specific provision to non-suit the Plaintiff on such account the Court?s jurisdiction to decide the dispute would not be arrested. The provisions of the Regulation 2 may be compared with those of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939 where Sections 8 and 18-B (8) bars the institution of a suit and entertainment of any claim unless the money lender is registered under that Act when the loan was advanced and unless the order passed u/s 18-B (2) contains particulars required thereunder and also provides for a penalty u/s 19 of the Act of imposition of punishment for carrying on business as a money lender without being registered as such. Since provisions similar to that of either Section 8 or Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act being absent in the Regulation, it cannot be held that the suit instituted by a person who has not obtained a licence -under Section 3 of the Regulation is not to be entertained. 7. The suit having been dismissed on the sole ground that a licence u/s 3 of the Regulation had not been obtained and there was no contest by the opp. party regarding availing of the loan from the Petitioner, the suit has to be decreed since the objection of the opp. party is found to be without merit. It must be held that both the Courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them in law. The revision is accordingly allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Aska confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif Surada are set aside and the suit is decreed in full on contest with costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed