( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed s suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 3,420-00 together with interest at 24% per annum ,inter alia, on the ground that the defendant had borrowed an amount of a sum of Rs. 2,000 - 00 from him on 10-1-1994 and agreed to repay the same with the aforementioned interest. The defence of the defendant - respondent was that of a denial. The learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:1. Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is professional money lender and requires the money lending licence 3. To what Relief? ( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff but so far as issue No. 2 having regard to the admission made by the plaintiff in his cross- examination that he has been carrying on business in money lending, the learned trial Judge held that he had not been able to produce licence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The short question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the petitioner herein having been carrying on business of money lending in Visakhapatnam which falls within the Andhra Pradesh area requires a licence therefor or not. The learned Counsel contends that although in Telangana Area there exists such a provision, no statute operates in the field regulating the business of money lending in Andrea Prudish area. As no body has appeared to oppose the petition having regard to the aforementioned contention of the learned Counsel, this court is of the opinion that the suit should not have been dismissed on the ground mentioned hereinabove. If no statute operates in the field regulating the business carried on by the citizen either by way of licence or otherwise, the suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been dismissed on the grounds of non production of any licence by the plaintiff- petitioner. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is directed to be decreed with costs. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is directed to be decreed with costs. As no body has appeared on behalf of the respondent there shall be no order as to costs so far as this petition is concerned.