JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Defendant is the Petitioner. The Plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 10 of 1983 in the court of the Additional Munsif, Bolangir for realisation of money basing on a pronote. 2. In the plaint it is averred that the Plaintiff is a registered money-lender. In the written statement the Defendant raised the contention that since the Plaintiff has not complied with Section 18B of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ace), the Money suit should not be entertained. The learned trial court considered the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue and held that though the Plaintiff is a registered money lender and the order as contemplated u/s 18B(2) of the Act has not been filed along with the plaint still the suit is to continue as the notification dated 9th July, 1975 is only meant for transactions prior to the date of notification as the notification indicates that within one month from the date of the publication the notification in the official gazette the money-lenders were to produce the records relating to their business before the authority and no further notification having been published and the Plaintiff need not comply with Section 18B(8) of the Act. This finding of the learned trial court is assailed in this Civil Revision. 3. Section 18B(1) of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act reads as follows: The State Government may, from time to time by notification, require the money -lenders or money-lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in local area, to produce before such authority and by such date as may be specified in the said notification, all records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans. As it is evident Section 18B(1) of the Act empowers the State Government to issue notification requiring the money-lenders to produce documents before the specified authority, within the time to be specified, and also to specify the area. Sub-sections (2) and (5) of Section 18B of the Act lay down the procedure of adjudication by the specified authority and Sub-sections (6) and (7) of the Act lay down the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority. Sub-sections (2) and (5) of Section 18B of the Act lay down the procedure of adjudication by the specified authority and Sub-sections (6) and (7) of the Act lay down the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority. Section 18B(8) of the Act which reads as follows: No Court shall entertain any claim in respect of any loan advanced prior, to the date of the order referred to in Sub-section (2) unless the particulars thereof are contained in the said order and all suits in respect of such claims shall stand abated.... gives the mandate to the Court not to entertain any suit unless the order as required u/s 18B(2) is filed along with the plaint. On 9th July; 1976 by B. R. No. 713176 the State Government published a notification as contemplated u/s 18-B of the Act. The notification reads as follows: The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18-B of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939, as amended by the Orissa Money-Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1975, do hereby direct that all registered money-lenders carrying on business in the Tahasil areas specified in Col. (2) of the schedule below, shall produce the records relating to their business including documents evidencing advance of loans to the S. D. O. specified in Col. (3) of the aforesaid schedule within one month from the date of publication of notification in the Official Gazette. Appeal against any order passed by Sub-divisional Officer under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 18B of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1969 as amended shall be preferred to the Collector of the concerned District. SCHEDULE Sl. No. (1) Name of Tahasil (2) Sub-divisional Officer (3) x x x 10 Balangir Tahsil Balangir Balangir X x x x Balangir Tahasil was included in the schedule. Though wordings of the said notification are not very explicit still it has to be construed that the areas appended to the schedule came within the purview of Section 18-B of the Act and the Sub-divisional Officers of the areas were notified to be the specified authority under Secion 18B of the Act to adjudicate the matters as per the procedure laid down in Section 18B(2) of the Act and what the notification means is that the time limit was one month forfiling the documents. In my opinion, this notification is a notification u/s 18B (1) and it is also applicable to all the Registered money-lenders and also taken into its fold the transactions which took place after the issuance of the notification and the Plaintiff was required to comply with Section 18B(2) of the Act. 4. In 63 (1987) C.L.T. 63 Dayanidhi Misra v. Ramachandra Mishra alias Chandra Sekhar Mishra), it has been held that though Section 18B (2) and (8) of the Act uses the expression "shall not entertain" and time limit is not mandatory and the court is to afford reasonable time to the Plaintiff to comply with provisions of Section 18B(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I hold that though the Plaintiff was required to comply with the requirements u/s 18B(2) and (8) of the Act the trial court should afford reasonable opportunity to comply with the provisions of Section 18B of the Act. 5. In the result, the order of the learned Additional Munsif, Balangir is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court. The learned Additional Munsif is directed to give reasonable opportunity to the Plaintiff to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 18B(2) and (8) of the Act and if the Plaintiff fails to comply within the time given by the learned trial court, then he shall dismiss the suit for noncompliance of the provisions of Section 18B(2) and (8) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.