JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated November 18, 1988 by which he allowed the appeal of the defendant and set aside the judgment of the learned Munsiff, Dhariawad dated August 22, 1986 decreeing the suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,999/- with interest and costs. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. On January 5, 1979, the defendant Bal Chand mortgaged his one Kotha with the plaintiff Chiman Lal, borrowed Rs. 4,001/- on interest and executed a deed in his favour. Neither he delivered the possession of his Kotha nor got the deed registered. 3. He filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,001/- as principal and Rs. 998/- as interest. The defendant traversed all the allegations of the plaint. He further averred that the suit deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff does not possess money lending licence and the document is not admissible in evidence as it is insufficiently stamped. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties the Trial Court held that the defendant borrowed Rs. 4,001/- with interest@ 1% per month and the plaintiff possesses money lending licence and accordingly decreed the suit with interest and costs. The defendant Bal Chand filed appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff does not possess money lending licence as required under the Rajasthan Money- Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'). 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned first Appellate Court seriously erred in holding that the plaintiff did not possess money lending licence when the suit loan was advanced simply on the ground that it was not filed during the trial of the suit. He contended that Section 11 of the Act does not require the production of money lending licence in original and the Court may be satisfied otherwise about the possession of money lending licence by the plaintiff. He lastly contended that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the suit as the defendant is a trader. . 5. He contended that Section 11 of the Act does not require the production of money lending licence in original and the Court may be satisfied otherwise about the possession of money lending licence by the plaintiff. He lastly contended that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the suit as the defendant is a trader. . 5. The learned Counsel for the defendant-Respondent duly supported the judgment of the first Appellate Court.At the outset it may be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the defendant pressed the issue No. 2 only relating to the money lending licence before the fast Appellate Court and no other issue was pressed by him. The following substantial questions of law are involved in this second appeal - 1. Whether the production of money lending licence in original by the plaintiff in the suit is necessary under Section 11 of the Act? 2. Whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the suit? Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act runs as under : "(1). Where a suit to which this Act applies is filed by a money- lender and the Court in which it is filed is satisfied that at the when the loan or any part thereof which the suit relates was advanced, the money-lender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit forthwith without going into the merits of the claim and shall order the refund of the security, if any, without repayment of the loan". 6. Admittedly, the burden of proof of issue No. 2 was upon the defendant The plaintiff Chiman Lal P.W. 2 has deposed that he possesses money lending licence and it has been submitted for its renewal. The defendant Bal Chand has not said anything on this issue. It is clear from the above quoted provisions of Section I1(1) that the production of the original money lending licence during the trial of the suit is not at all necessary. If the Court is satisfied by the non-production or otherwise that the plaintiff did not posses money lending licence when the suit loan was advanced, it shall dismiss the suit The learned Trial Court rightly decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff in view of the unrebutted statement on oath of the plaintiff that he possesses money lending licence. The learned first Appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the case at all. 7. In this Court the plaintiff-appellant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code along with the photostat copy of his money lending licence dated April, 1, 1966 renewed upto March 31, 1990. In his reply, the defendant-appellant has not denied the fact of the possession of the said money lending licence by the plaintiff. He has opposed the application on the technical grounds. From his reply also it is well proved that the plaintiff possessed money lending licence when the suit loan was advanced on January 5, 1979. It is held that the production of the original money lending licence during the trial of the suit is not necessary. 8. It is clear from the above quoted provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act that these provisions are applicable in respect of the suit to which the Act applies. Section 2(25) of the Act defines 'suit to which this Act applies'. It would be best to quote it here : "(15) 'Suit to which this Act applies' means any suit or proceeding - (a) for the recovery of a loan made after the date on which this Act comes into force; or (b) for the enforcement of any security taken or any agreement made after the date on which this Act comes into force in respect of any loan made either before or after the said date; or (c) for the redemption of any security given after the date on which this Act comes into forces in respect of any loan made either before or after the said date." 9. 'Loan' has been defined in Section 2(9) of the Act. Its clause (j) excluded a loan to a trader. If the defendant is a trader, the Act would not apply to the present suit. The defendant Bal Chand has stated himself to be a trader in his affidavit dated August 2,1983, Paper No. A29/3-4, affidavit dated December 6, 1983, Paper No. B30/3-4, in his statement dated November 6, 1985 and affidavit dated March 2, 1984, Paper No. B47/1-3. These documents contain his own admission of his being a trader. As such the Act is not applicable to the suit. The learned first Appellate Court seriously erred in dismissing it under Section 11 of the Act. These documents contain his own admission of his being a trader. As such the Act is not applicable to the suit. The learned first Appellate Court seriously erred in dismissing it under Section 11 of the Act. This question is also decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated November 18, 1988 are set aside. The judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Dhariawad dated August 22, 1986 are restored.DD73 Appeal allowed. *******