JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The core question that arises for decision in this revision is whether the courts below were right in dismissing the Petitioner's suit for non-compliance with the provisions of the Orissa Money Lender's Regulation, 1967 (hereinafter called 'the Regulation'). 2. The Petitioner filed Money Suit No. 16 of 1978 against the opposite party in the Court of the Addl. Munsif, Gunupur for realisation of Rs. 2380/- from the latter. The gist of his case was that he, a registered money-lender in due course of his money-lending-business advanced a sum of Rs. 1750/- to the opposite party on 6-7-1975 stipulating that the latter would repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on demand and the latter executed a promissory note (Ext. 1) in token of acceptance of the loan of Rs. 1750/-. As the opp. party did not repay the amount in spite of repeated demands, the Petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the amount with interest and cost. 3. The opposite party in his written statement while admitting execution of the promissory note (Ext. 1) for Rs. 1750/- took the plea that he was forced to execute the said promissory note for the cost of 25 bags of paddy which was the interest of previous outstanding loan and there was really no passing of consideration. The trial Court while holding that the promissory note (Ext. 1) was supported by consideration dismissed the suit on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulation by the Petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court framed an additional issue on this point and answered it in the aforesaid manner. 4. On appeal by the Plaintiff-Petitioner the lower appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court framed an additional issue on this point and answered it in the aforesaid manner. 4. On appeal by the Plaintiff-Petitioner the lower appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It appears from the discussions in the judgment of the appellate Court that only one point was urged on behalf of the Petitioner in the appeal, that in view of the specific admission by the opposite party in paragraph 8 of the written statement that the Petitioner had complied with the provisions of the Orissa (Scheduled areas) Money Lenders' Regulation, the lower Court was not justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulation and further that in view of this admission the trial Court erred in framing an issue regarding the compliance of the provisions of the Regulation. The lower appellate Court rejected the contention. 5. The aforesaid point has been reiterated on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Undoubtedly a statement has been made in paragraph 8 of the written statement that the Plaintiff being a registered money-lender has complied with the provisions of the Orissa (Scheduled Areas) Money Lenders' Regulation. But keeping in view the intent and purpose of the legislature and the express provisions of Section 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Regulation, there can be little doubt that the afore mentioned statement in the written statement is of no help to the Petitioner. It would be convenient to quote the provisions of Section 11 of the Regulation. Procedure in suits regarding loans: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in any suit to which this Act applies: (a) the Court shall, before deciding the claim on merits, frame and decide the issue whether the money-lender has complied with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9. (b) if the Court finds that the aforesaid provisions have not been complied with by the moneylender it shall disallow the whole of the claim. (b) if the Court finds that the aforesaid provisions have not been complied with by the moneylender it shall disallow the whole of the claim. Explanation-A money-lender who has given the receipt or furnished a statement of accounts or a passbook in the prescribed form and manner, shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Section 8 or 9, as the case may be, in spite of any error or omission, if the Court is of the opinion that such error or omission is not material or not made fraudulently. 6. From the provisions quoted above, it is clear that in any suit to which the Act applies, a mandate is given to the Court to frame and decide the issue whether the money-lender has complied with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulation and if the Court finds that the said provisions have not been complied with by the money-lender, it shall disallow the whole of the claim. The provisions of Section 11 are applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. The provisions are of mandatory character and the court has to discharge the mandate of satisfying itself that Sections 8 and 9 have been duly complied with by the Plaintiff before deciding the claim on merit. It is thus clear that the statement by the Defendant in the written statement that provisions of the Regulation have been complied with by the Plaintiff would not prevent the Court from discharging the duty cast on it by the provisions of Section 11 of the Regulation. This position gains strength from the 'provisions of Section 10 of the Regulation under which it is expressly provided that a debtor to whom a statement of accounts or a pass-book has been furnished u/s 9 shall not be bound to acknowledge or deny its correctness and his failure to do so shall not by itself be deemed to be an admission of the correctness of the accounts. A heavy burden is cast on the Plaintiff-money-lender to satisfy the Court that the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 or the Regulation have been complied with by him as a mandatory condition precedent before proceeding to the merit of the suit and the burden has to be discharged by him notwithstanding any admission by the Defendant. A heavy burden is cast on the Plaintiff-money-lender to satisfy the Court that the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 or the Regulation have been complied with by him as a mandatory condition precedent before proceeding to the merit of the suit and the burden has to be discharged by him notwithstanding any admission by the Defendant. This interpretation would be in accord with the object of the Statute, a piece of beneficial legislation backed by the legislative policy of affording protection to the debtors. 7. On the aforesaid discussions it is to be held that the trial Court rightly framed the issue whether the Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulation and the Courts below rightly held that the Plaintiff having failed to satisfy that the said provisions had been complied with, was bound to be non-suited. 8. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with cost. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) only. Final Result : Dismissed