JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1980, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur, in a civil suit No. 98/1978 whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent. 2. At the very out set the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the plaintiff-respondent filed a money suit against the defendant- appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,160/-. The defendant-appellant filed written statement and in that written statement he took an objection that the plaintiff-respondent is a money- lender and is not having a money lending licence as required under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act. 3. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings, framed issued No. 5 but the onus of proving of this issue was kept on the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court erred in laying the burden of proving on the defendant-appellant for issue No. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Hari Narain Tiwari v. Damodar Busar (RLR 1987 (II) 59). In Hari Narain Tiwari's case (supra) this Court observed as under:- "Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money and an objection was raised in the written statement that the suit was barred under the provisions of Rajasthan Money Lenders Act and therefore, the burden to prove that the suit for recovery of any loan in view of the restrictions placed by the Act, lies on the plaintiff and therefore, the burden for proving the issue should have been placed on the plaintiff and not on the defendant. When a person files a suit knowing fully well that a law has been enacted which provides bar for filing the suit, it is for the person who files suit that such bar is not applicable." 4. I have gone through the decision taken by the Hon'ble I.S. Israni, J. in the case of Hari Narain Tiwari v. Damodar Busar (Supra) and I totally agree with the view taken in that case. The learned Judge while allowing the revision petition set aside the order of the trial Court dated 23-11-1982 and directed that the burden for proving issue No. 6 is cast on the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 5. The learned Judge while allowing the revision petition set aside the order of the trial Court dated 23-11-1982 and directed that the burden for proving issue No. 6 is cast on the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 5. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Bhargava, J., in the case of Ram Babu v. Gajanand, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 31/1980 decided on 24th November, 1990. In Ram Babu's case (Supra) also the burden of proving was cast on the defendant-appellant for proving that the plaintiff respondent is a money lender and this Court in appeal No. 38/1980 observed that the approach of the learned trial Court in casting the burden of proving on the defendant- appellant was perverse and erroneous and, therefore, the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree of the trial Court was set-aside and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the issue afresh. 6. After going through the entire record and considering the pleadings of the parties, I am of the opinion that similar view as has been taken by this Court in the above cited cases, sould be taken in this appeal. 7. Consequently, this appeal is, therefore, allowed and I set aside the judgment of the trial Court (Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur) dated 29-9-1980 and remand the case back to the learned trial Court with this direction that the burden of proof of issue No. 5 shall be cast on the plaintiff-respondent and the learned trial Court shall record the evidence of the parties on this issue and after recording the evidence of the parties, shall decide the whole case afresh. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 4-2-1992.Appeal allowed. *******