( 1 ) IN the present revisional application under Article 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner/defendant has assailed the impugned order being No. 52 dated 29. 8. 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 12 of 2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dismissal of the suit on the ground of non- maintainability of the same as the O. P. /plaintiff has no money lending licence as required under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. ( 2 ) MR. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, while frankly submitted that the learned Court below was quite justified in dismissing the application since for failure to produce money lending licence will not entail dismissal of the suit, contended that as the receipt for renewal of the money lending licence was not filed in the learned Court below, it was not a part of the record and as such the learned Court below should not have taken into account of the same. Mr. Dutta, relying upon the cases of Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad reported in (2002)1 SCC 90 (para 14) and R. Kapilnath v. Krishna reported in (2003)1 SCC 444 (para 5) further contended that as a money-lender has certain obligations as embodied in Sections 25 and 27 of the said Act, he must continue to hold such licence, and though his client did not pray for stay of the suit, it was the bounden duty of the learned court below to stay the suit in view of the specific provision of Section 13 of the Act. ( 3 ) THERE is no embargo to file a suit by unlicensed money-lender but embargo has been put in the statute against trial of the suit and passing decree without effective licence being produced. The trial Court can proceed and decree may be passed once the licence is shown to the Court or on imposing penalty, as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swaika Vanaspati Products Ltd. v. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. reported in (2000)2 Cal LJ 185. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTIONS (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Act are reproduced hereunder : 13. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTIONS (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Act are reproduced hereunder : 13. Stay of suit when money-lender does not hold licence.- (1) No Court shall pass a decree or under in favour of a money-lender in any suit instituted by a money-lender for the 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 an agreement entered into or security taken, or for the recovery of an 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 moneylender held an effective licence. (2) 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. ( 5 ) IN the case on hand, the impugned order reveals that the learned lawyer for the defendant submitted before the learned Court below that "the receipt which has been filed for renewal money lending licence by the plaintiff clearly shows that the said licence was valid only upto 10. 6. 2000". The learned Court below observed that "it is very much clear from the said receipt that he deposited the same for renewal and it is the contention of plaintiff that still it has not been renewed". So, that the receipt for renewal of licence was not produced before the learned Court below, as contended by Mr. Dutta is not sustainable. ( 6 ) NEVERTHELESS, in view of the above, it cannot be said that at the time of advancing loan to the petitioner/defendant on 17. 8. 97, the O. P. / plaintiff had no effective money lending licence. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the question of stay of the suit by the learned Court below suo motu was out of the way. 8. 97, the O. P. / plaintiff had no effective money lending licence. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the question of stay of the suit by the learned Court below suo motu was out of the way. ( 8 ) IT has been held in para 14 of the case of Rajendra (supra) that where the relief prayed for in the suit is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the same but the facts, as established, justify granting of a smaller relief Order VII Rule 7 permits granting of such a relief to the parties. In para 5 of the case of R. Kapilnath (supra) it was observed that the plaintiff or the petitioner may claim a higher right and may succeed in proving only a smaller right or entitlement to relief but that would not result in disentitling the plaintiff or the petitioner from succeeding so long as the smaller right successfully substantiated by him is enough in law to entitle him to a relief against the defendant. Here, the petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue which was disposed of by the impugned order, and so no higher right or larger relief being involved, the question of application of any of the said two cases in the present facts and circumstances does not arise, apart from the fact that there was no scope, as discussed earlier, to stay the suit under Section 13 of the Act. ( 9 ) WITH the background discussion, the present revisional application being devoid of any merit be dismissed in limine.