JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The unsuccessful plaintiff in Money Suit No. 20 of 1978 has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23rd October, 1979 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh dismissing the suit on the ground of non-compliance of Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The plaintiff's case in brief, is that the plaintiff was a registered money lender having licence No. 8 of 1971 for Rs. 50,000/- from the competent authority under the Act. Loknath Rai, the predecessor of the defendants, being in need of money to meet the legal necessity of his family, took loan of Rs. 4,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1975 on executing promissory Note, Ext. 2. It was agreed upon that the aforesaid loan would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands the debtor did not pay anything either towards the loan or interest accrued thereon. Ultimately he died leaving behind the defendants as his heirs on whom the properties left behind him have devolved. So, the defendants were liable to repay the loan to the plaintiff, but they failed. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants in their written statement refuting the claim of the laintiff, contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff being a money-lender in regular course of business had not obtained licence as required under the Act. It was further pleaded that the defendant's predecessor Loknath Rai was never in need of money and there was no necessity for him to incur loan. It was also urged that the suit is bad since order as required u/s 18-B of the Act had not been obtained from the S.D.O., Titilagarh. 4. On the above pleadings the learned trial Court framed eight issues of which the main issues were : 1. Whether the plaintiff had advanced the loan to Lokanath ? 2. Whether the said Lokanath executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff ? 3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff ? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. The defendants on the other hand led oral evidence in support of their case. Whether the said Lokanath executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff ? 3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff ? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. The defendants on the other hand led oral evidence in support of their case. The learned trial Court on scrutiny of the evidence accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that Lokanath had incurred loan of Rs. 4,000/- from the plaintiff and that the defendants having succeeded to the properties left behind him, are liable to repay the same. He however, dismissed the suit since provisions of Selection 18-B had not been complied with, inasmuch as though the plaintiff produced records relating to his money-lending business for scrutiny, but the same having been filed beyond time fixed by the notification, the authority concerned lacked jurisdiction to scrutinise the same. Against that order of dismissal, the present appeal is filed. 6. Sri N.C.Pati, learned counsel for the plaintiff, challenging the legality and correctness of the finding of the learned trial Court has strenuously contended that the order as required u/s 18-B of the Act having been obtained from the competent authority and against the same no appeal having been preferred by the person aggrieved, namely, defendants, as provided under Sub-section (7), order passed either under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) is final and cannot be called in question in any Court. This being the position of law, learned Subordinate Judge went beyond his jurisdiction and sat upon the order passed by the competent authority as an appellate Court which he could not have done in view of the finality attached to the said order. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside and findings on other issues having gone in favour of the plaintiff, the appeal should be allowed and the suit should be decreed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that since the books of accounts were not produced before the S.D.O., Titilagarh, for verification within the time specified in the Notification, the order so made is without jurisdiction and therefore, it should be held that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 18-B of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that since the books of accounts were not produced before the S.D.O., Titilagarh, for verification within the time specified in the Notification, the order so made is without jurisdiction and therefore, it should be held that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 18-B of the Act. In view of the above, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. 8. The sole question for consideration in the present appeal is whether it was within the competence of the trial Court to hold that the authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to scrutinise the documents produced by the plaintiff u/s 18-B of after the due date specified in the notification. 9. To appreciate the contentions raised by Sri Pati, it would be apposite to have a brief reference of the relevant provisions of Section 18-B of the Act. The said section came to the Statute Book by the Orissa Amendment Act 54 of 1975. As provided in Sub-section (1), the State Govt. may, from time to time by notification require the money-lender or money-lenders, belonging to any class or carrying on business in any 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. Sub-section (2) envisages that the authority so specified shall scrutinise the documents for determining as to whether the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and after giving the money-lender a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the certificate. The next relevant provision is Sub-section (6). Under the said provision any person aggrieved by an order passed u/s (2) or Sub-section (4) may, within one month from the date of communication of the said order, prefer an appeal before such authority as may be specified in the notification within one month from the date of communication of the said order. Sub-section (7) which is relevant for the present appeal provides that the order passed under Sub-Section (2) or Sub-section (4) shall, subject to the order passed in an appeal, if any, be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Sub-section (7) which is relevant for the present appeal provides that the order passed under Sub-Section (2) or Sub-section (4) shall, subject to the order passed in an appeal, if any, be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Sub-section (8) says that 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. In the present case as observed by the Court below, the State Govt. by notification vide S.R.O. No. 713/76 dated 9.7.1976 published in Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary No. 1149-D/14.7.1976 required all the money lenders of Titilagarh Tahasil (Plaintiff being a resident of Titilagarh) to produce all the records relating to their business evidencing advance of loans before the S.D.O., Titilagarh, within one month from the date of publication of the said notification. The books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff in his regular course of business were produced before the S.D.O. for verification and the endorsement appended to the books of accounts reveals that the same were duly verified. It was also indicated therein that the amount advanced had not exceeded the limit of rupees one lakh. Below the aforesaid endorsement, the S.D.O. has put his signature and date (16.6.1978). Since the last transaction was on 7.3.1978, the learned Court below observed that the books of accounts could not have been produced before that date for verification by the S.D.O. So it having not been produced within one month of the notification referred to above, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 18(B). Consequently he held that the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to exercise the power under the Act to scrutinise the documents and to issue certificate. In the preceding paragraph I have referred to the relevant provisions of Section 18(B). The Act is a special statute and any order passed by the authority competent under the Act, subject to the provisions of appeal, cannot be called in question in any Court of law. It is not the case of defendants that the S.D.O., Titilagarh was not the competent authority and that he had no jurisdiction to pass order as required under the Act. It is not the case of defendants that the S.D.O., Titilagarh was not the competent authority and that he had no jurisdiction to pass order as required under the Act. Admittedly he had jurisdiction to scrutinise the books of accounts of the plaintiff and issue necessary orders. But what'it urged is that since the books of accounts were not produced within the time specified in the notification, the order so made is honest in the eye of law. In that view of the matter, the question arises whether it is in the province of the Civil Court to sit upon the said order. It may be recalled, there is provision of appeal and the defendants being the persons aggrieved could have assailed the order of the S.D.O. in the higher forum. That was however not done. In view of the specific bar contained in Sub-section (7) of Section 18-B, it was nor within the competence of the Civil Court to sit upon the order of the S.D.O. and hold that he lacked jurisdiction to scrutinise the books of account of the plaintiff and pass orders. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to a decision reported in Chitaranjan Misra and Others Vs. Banamali Misra and Others where Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment observed : "** ** ** Whether the documents required u/s 18-B(2) of the Act were produced before the authority within the stipulated period are to be investigated by the notified authority including the appellate authority. In view of the ouster of jurisdiction of any Court to question the order which has become final Civil Court cannot examine the validity of the order under Sub-section (2). Therefore, the trial Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in taking into consideration the validity of the declaration u/s 18-B(2)." 10. In view of the above findings of the learned trial Court that S.D.O., Titilagarh had no jurisdiction to scrutinise the documents produced by the plaintiff after the date specified in the notification, is unsustainable. 11. Next question that crops up for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit can be decreed. It may be stated that the findings of the trial Court under issue Nos. 1 and 2 are in favour of the plaintiff, inasmuch as it has been held that Late Loknath Rai, the predecessor of the defendants, had incurred loan of Rs. 11. Next question that crops up for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit can be decreed. It may be stated that the findings of the trial Court under issue Nos. 1 and 2 are in favour of the plaintiff, inasmuch as it has been held that Late Loknath Rai, the predecessor of the defendants, had incurred loan of Rs. 4,000/- on his executing promissory note, Ext. 2. These findings are based on appreciation of evidence and there is no challenge to such findings. As to the liability of the defendants to repay of the loan incurred by Late Lokanath Rai, the learned Subordinate Judge on scrutiny of the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and on consideration of the pleadings of the defendants observed that since the defendants have succeeded to the estate left by the deceased Lokanath, they are liable to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. There has been no challenge to this finding by the defendants. 12. In view of the discussions made above and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,440/- (inclusive of principal and interest upto 17.5.1978 i.e. the date of filing of the suit) with future simple interest ' 9% till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to cost throughout. Final Result : Allowed