R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant is in appeal against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge (presently designated as Civil Judge, Senior, Division ). Nayagarh passed in Money Appeal No. 2 of 1955. By the impugned judgment he set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsiff, Ranpur, whereby plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 3,957. 50 p. based on a pronote was dismissed. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF's case, in brief, is that the defendant being in need of money to meet the expenses of his saw-mill and to repay his other loans, took a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a pronote. According to the plaintiff he was a registered money-lender at the time the loan was advanced, but he closed his money-lending business in 1970. The defendants made payments on two occasions, inasmuch as on 24-3-70 he paid a sum of Rs. 100/- and on 23-3-73 he paid Rs. 5,300/ -. Thereafter he did not make any payment. Hence the suit. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT on being noticed file written statement. According to him, he had incurred a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff, but a pronote for Rs. 5,000/- was obtained from him. He made payment of Rs. 1,000/- on 24-3-1970 in the morning and Rs. 6,300/- in the afternoon. Only a sum of Rs. 110/- remained to be paid. Later on he went with the aforesaid amount and offered to the plaintiff, but could not make payment since the plaintiff gave out that the pronote was not traceable. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings the learned trial Court framed the following issues"1. Is the suit as laid, maintainable?2. Is the suit barred by limitation?3. as the defendant taken a loan of Rupees 5,000/- from the plaintiff and what amount has been repaid by the defendant?4. To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by judgment dated 10th December, 1976. Aggrieved thereby the defendant filed Money Appeal No. 1 of 1977. To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by judgment dated 10th December, 1976. Aggrieved thereby the defendant filed Money Appeal No. 1 of 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh, upon hearing the parties set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for fresh disposal with a direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the suit was hit by the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (for short, 'the Act') and Rules framed thereunder. After remand the trial Court framed an additional issue as under :"is the suit hit under the provisions of Orissa Money Lenders Act and Rules?"on reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Munsif accepted the plaintiff's case that defendant had incurred a loan of Rs. 5,000/- and had repaid a sum of Rs. 5,400/- and thus was liable to pay the rest as claimed. He also held that the suit to be within time. He, however, held the suit to have abated as the certificate as required under Section 18-B of the Act was not obtained. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree plaintiff preferred appeal which was registered as Money Appeal No. 2 of 1985. The sole question for consideration before the first appellate Court was whether it was obligatory of the plaintiff to obtain necessary certificate as required under Section 18-B of the Act when his positive assertion was that his money lending business was closed in 1970. The defendant while supporting the finding of the trial Court on the additional issue, also assailed the findings under the other issues since same were recorded against him. The plaintiff placed reliance on a decision reported in 1984 (1) OLR 276 : (AIR 1984 Orissa 118), Bauribandhu Patra v. Biswanath Bahera, in support of his contention that Section 18b of the Act had no application to maintain a suit as he was no more a money-lender. This submission found favour with the learned first appellate Court. It was observed that since the plaintiff was no more carrying on business in money-lending, the provisions of Section 18-B of the Act are not attracted. This submission found favour with the learned first appellate Court. It was observed that since the plaintiff was no more carrying on business in money-lending, the provisions of Section 18-B of the Act are not attracted. The Court also did not accept the contention of the defendants in so far as findings on other issues are concerned as because he had not preferred cross-objection. In fine, he set aside the trial Court's judgment and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit. It is against that judgment of the first appellate Court the present Second Appeal is filed. 4. 1. While admitting the Second Appeal the Court did not formulate the substantial questions of law involved in the case. Paragraphs 9 (a) and 9 (b) of the memorandum of appeal were considered as substantial questions of law. The questions formulated thereunder are as follows :" (a) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court committed error of law in ignoring the material evidence adduced in the case on the point of limitation in Court below did not file cross-objection and were (was) supporting the decree that was in his favour? (b) Whether the learned appellate Court is correct in decreeing the suit filed by a money lender in respect of a loan advanced in the year 1967 without complying the mandatory provision of Section 16-A of the Orissa Money Lender's Act?" in course of argument Miss. Panda confined her submission with regard to the findings of the first appellate Court so far as applicability of Section 18-D of the Act is concerned. Her main thrust of submission is that the intention of the Legislature being to safeguard the interest of poor debtors from harassment by unscrupulous money-lenders, certain amendments, particularly S. 18-B of the Act has been brought into the statute book and as the law requires, to maintain suit by a registered money-lender an order has to be obtained from the concerned authority and if such order is not filed, the suit shall stand abated. She further submitted that compliance of Section 18-B is a must even which the matter is pending in appeal. Elaborating the submission, Miss. She further submitted that compliance of Section 18-B is a must even which the matter is pending in appeal. Elaborating the submission, Miss. Panda urged that though Section 18-B of the Act was not there when the suit was filed, yet the same would apply since it came to the statute book during pendency of the appeal and therefore, necessary order having not been obtained as required under law, plaintiff's suit stood abated. In support of her contention she placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Narayan Choudhury v. Koka Das, (1980) 49 CLT 524. ( 5 ) IN view of the submissions made at the Bar, the sole question for consideration in the present appeal is whether Section 18-B of the Act has application to the present case in view of the plaintiff's assertion that he was no more a money-lender. For better appreciation, relevant provisions of Section 18-B of the Act necessary for the purpose is extracted hereunder :"18-B. Power of the Government to require money-lenders to produce records- (1) The State Government may, from time to time, by notification require the 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. (2) The authority specified in the notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall scrutinise the documents with a view to determining if the transactions exceed the amount for which the money-lender has obtained the registration certificate and shall, after giving the money-lender a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass an order declaring the particulars of transactions that are within the amount specified in the said certificate. x x x (4) If the authority referred to in sub-section (2) is satisfied that a money-lender has transacted business in excess of the amount specified in his registration certificate, he may issue an order cancelling the said certificate and may also disqualify him from being registered as a money-lender for such period not exceeding three years as may be specified in the order. x x x (6) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (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 referred to in sub-section (1 ). (7) An 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. (8) 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. x x x" ( 6 ) A plain reading of sub-section (1) manifests that it applies to money-lender belonging to any class or a money-lender carrying on business in any local area. The word 'money-lender' defined in Section 2 (j) means, "a person whose business is that of advancing loans but does not include a Bank or Co-operative Society and the expression 'money-lending' shall be constituted accordingly. " ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff was a money-lender and in order to have his money-lending business he had obtained a licence as required under the Act. The amount alleged to have been advanced under the pronote was within the amount for which the money-lending licence was obtained. On a reading of the provisions of Section 18-B, I am of the considered opinion that even if the plaintiff had stopped his money-lending business in 1970, but since he was a registered money-lender and filed the suit on the basis of a pronote, it was obligatory for him to obtain necessary certificate as envisaged in Section 18-B and to produce the same either before the trial Court when the matter came on remand or before the first appellate Court or this Court. Though the decision is Narayan Choudhury (supra) (1980) 49 Cut LT 524) (supra) cited by Miss. Panda is not direct on the point involved, but the observation made therein cannot be lost sight of. Though the decision is Narayan Choudhury (supra) (1980) 49 Cut LT 524) (supra) cited by Miss. Panda is not direct on the point involved, but the observation made therein cannot be lost sight of. In the said case, the Court observed that since the statute intended to regulate the business of money-lending and the amending statute case for the purpose of imposing a greater restriction and control, to exclude appeal from the operation of the amending provision may defeat the legislative intention. In substance, the view of this Court is that Section 18-B of the Act has application even when the matter is pending in appeal. The decision of this Court in Bauribandhu Patra (AIR 1984 Orissa 118) (supra) on which the plaintiff placed reliance is distinguishable. The question in the said reported case was whether the decree was executable in view of non-compliance of Section 16-B of the Act. A money decree was passed whereafter the decree-holder levied execution. In the execution proceeding, the judgment-debtor made a prayer to make payment of the decretal dues by instalment. That prayer was accepted and once payments were made. Thereafter when he defaulted, steps were taken for attachment of his property. In the meanwhile learned Munsif suo motu raised an objection as to the maintainability of the execution proceeding in view of Section 18-B of the Act and consequently dismissed the execution petition holding that the decree was no more executable in view of sub-section (8) of Section 18-B. The question for consideration before this Court was whether Section 18-B has application to execution proceeding. In that view of the matter, any observation made in the said judgment about applicability of Section 18-B to an erstwhile money-lender cannot have a general application since it was not an issue involved in that case. ( 8 ) GIVING my anxious consideration to the materials on record and submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as also the law involved, I am of the opinion that since the plaintiff had advanced loan as registered money lender it was incumbent upon him to produce necessary certificate as required under Section 18-B of the Act and that having not been done, the suit stands abated as provided under sub-section (8) of the said section. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.