N. C. SIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is to consider a prayer as to whether there is necessity for hearing the Issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue. I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties and in course of their submissions on the necessity for hearing of Issue No. 2 very often the learned advocates for both the parties overlapped and entered into the merits of hearing of the Issue No. 2 itself. Sometimes, from the record and the subsequent order sheets also it appears as if the matter resting for hearing the Issue No. 2. But the order dated 10. 9. 2004 is conspicuous enough to suggest that the necessity for hearing of Issue No. 2 is fixed and the matter for consideration not to dispose of Issue No. 2 itself. Issue No. 2 reads as under:"is the plaintiff debarred from filing the suit under the provisions of Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 as alleged in paragraph 16 of. the written statement?". ( 2 ) MR. Dutt appearing along with Mr. Ranjan Kr. Bachwat submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that there is no necessity for hearing the Issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue for the reason that in terms of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure hearing of issue No. 2 will not help the Court to dispose of the suit itself. Mr. Bachwat has drawn my attention to the provisions of section 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 where it is written that there is no bar to file the suit and in order to dispose of Issue No. 2 the court first is to come to the finding that the plaintiff is a money lender which again depends on the facts of the case. ( 3 ) MR. P. K. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant had drawn my attention to the plaint itself and submits that in the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that they are the money lenders and as such there is absolutely no necessity to take any attempt to explore as to whether the plaintiff is a money lender or not. Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to the several provisions of Bengal Money Lenders act and it is submitted by him further that the plaintiff admits that they have no licence for doing money lending business. Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to the several provisions of Bengal Money Lenders act and it is submitted by him further that the plaintiff admits that they have no licence for doing money lending business. ( 4 ) MR. Dutt appearing for the plaintiffs submits that it appears from paragraphs 3, 15 and \6 of the written statement that the defendants did not admit the plaintiff as a money lender and this is why it is required for the Court to find out as to whether the plaintiffs are the money lender. Mr. Dutt has further argued from the provisions of section 13 (2) that there is no direction from the Court upon the plaintiff to pay fine for the purpose of obtaining licence. ( 5 ) SECTION 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as Act only) deals with the provisions of stay of suit when money lender does not hold licence. Clause (1) stipulates that no Court shall pass a decree in favour of a money lender in any suit instituted by a money lender for recovery of a loan advanced after the date notified under section 8 or in any suit instituted by a money lender for the enforcement of any security given in respect of such loan, unless the court is satisfied that, at the time or times when the loan or any part thereof was advanced, the money lender held an effective licence. The plaintiff has not claimed anything to the effect that they have got licence under the Act. Clause (2) of section 13 of the Act reads as under:"if during the trial of a suit to which sub-section (1) applies, the Court finds that the money lender did not hold such licence, the Court shall, before proceeding with the suit, require the money lender to pay in the prescribed manner and within the period to be fixed by the Court such penalty as the Court thinks fit, not exceeding three times the amount of the licence fee specified in section 10. " ( 6 ) I have already mentioned that although the matter was for consideration as regards the necessity for hearing of Issue No. 2, at the time of hearing the learned advocates for both the parties overlapped and entered into the merits of Issue No. 2 and in fact I have heard the Issue No. 2 in all senses. In the plaint there is clear admission of the plaintiff Company in the first paragraph itself that the defendant No. 1 carries on business providing inter alia financial service and obtains loans and deposits for the purpose of its business. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff lends diverse amount to the defendant No. 1 from time to time. An account is given at page 6 (six) of the plaint as regards the amount advanced to the defendant. In para 8 of the plaint the plaintiff has given an account of repayment made by the defendant No. 1 and other defendants to the plaintiff aggregating a sum of Rs. 42,40,000/ -. In para 9 the payment of interest on such amount on the loan amount advanced to the defendant is given. There is no iota of mention in the plaint that the plaintiff has got any licence. In such circumstances, there appears in my humble view no necessity to enter into the facts to determine as to whether the plaintiff is a money lender rather from their own admission it is abundantly clear that they are in business of money lending. ( 7 ) AFTER the above finding it is not difficult for the Court to dispose of the Issue No. 2 itself without wasting any time further. Section 13 of the Act does not say anything that no suit can be filed if a money lender does not obtain any licence under the Act and what it is stipulated there is the mandate that no Court shall pass a decree or order. In such circumstances when the money lender has no licence the Court can only proceed if the penalty for obtaining licence is paid in terms of clause (2) of section 13 of the Act. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, it is held that the plaintiff Company is a money lender having no licence. In such circumstances when the money lender has no licence the Court can only proceed if the penalty for obtaining licence is paid in terms of clause (2) of section 13 of the Act. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, it is held that the plaintiff Company is a money lender having no licence. I, therefore, direct the plaintiff Company to comply with the provisions of clause (2) of section 13 of the Act and pay the fine and to obtain the licence under section 13 and to pay the statutory penalty under clause (2) of the said section within a period of two (2) months from the date failing which the provisions contained in clause (3) of section 13 of the Act will come into force immediately. Issue No. 2 is thus disposed of. Let the suit to out of the list with liberty to either of the party to mention. Later: all parties including the Licensing Authority do act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Issue No. 2 disposed of