JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J.: 1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 3 of 2023 in C.S. No. 142 of 2021 praying for judgment and decree upon admission. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for a decree for sum of Rs. 9,99,97,678/-along with interest. 2. The plaintiff says that the defendant has unconditionally and unequivocally admitted and acknowledged the amount claimed by the plaintiff. He submits that the defendant confirmed the accounts showing outstanding dues for the period 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The plaintiff says that it is clear from the admissions made in the pleadings and otherwise as well as the submissions made on behalf of the defendant that the defendant has admitted the jural relationship between the parties. 3. The plaintiff relied upon the statement of account bearing No. 910010017274507 with the Axis Bank Ltd., Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 wherein on diverse dates from 6th May, 2015 to 27th December, 2018, the plaintiff has transferred an amount of Rs. 6,84,01,288/-to the defendant either by way of RTGS or NEFT. 4. The plaintiff has also relied upon the confirmation of accounts for the Financial Year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-2018 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff from time to time. The plaintiff says that the confirmation of accounts issued by the defendant clearly shows that the defendant owes to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6,77,51,288/-. 5. The plaintiff says that the Ledger Account of the defendant in his books of accounts which squarely matches with the transaction shown by the defendant in the confirmation of accounts issued by the defendant. Plaintiff says that the plaintiff further advanced the accommodation loan to the defendant a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-during the Financial Year 2018-19 and thus the defendant is liable to pay total sum of Rs. 6,84,01,288/-. 6. That plaintiff says that plaintiff has also sent notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the amount along with interest but inspite of receipt of notice neither the defendant has returned the amount nor has sent any reply to the said notice. The plaintiff says that there is no other material question between the parties, which this Court may require to determine at this stage. 7. The plaintiff says that there is no other material question between the parties, which this Court may require to determine at this stage. 7. The defendant says that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of money lending within the State of West Bengal and thus the business of the plaintiff comes within the purview of the definition of “Money-Lender” as defined under Section 2(13) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The defendant says that the plaintiff is in the business of money lending and the plaintiff has instituted several proceedings before this Court against several persons or entity for recovery of money. 8. The defendant says that the plaintiff has initiated several cases involving financial or monitory matters including money lent and advance which prove that the claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is not a single isolated instance of the money lending. The defendant says that the conduct of the plaintiff shows that the money lending activity of the plaintiff is systematic, regular, repetitive and continuous one and the same has being done by the plaintiff in order to generate revenue by way of interest. 9. The defendant says that as per Section 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, no court shall pass a decree or order in favour of the money lender for recovery of loan advance unless the Court is satisfied that at the time of such loan or any part thereof was advance, the money lender has an effective money lending license. The defendant says that in the present case, the plaintiff is not having any money lending license. 10. The defendant says that it was not possible for the defendant to return the amount to the plaintiff in one go and a meeting was held between the plaintiff and the defendant on 20th February, 2018 wherein the defendant agreed to transfer the land at Kasba, measuring an area of 10 Katha 24 Chittak and 04 sq.ft of land out of total area 39 Cottas 8 Chittak and 10 sq.ft. of land which includes metal road of more or less 5 Cottahs for a total sum of Rs.7,00,000,00/-(Rupees Seven Crore Only). of land which includes metal road of more or less 5 Cottahs for a total sum of Rs.7,00,000,00/-(Rupees Seven Crore Only). The defendant says that as per the agreement, the plaintiff has paid a further amount of Rs.6,50,000/-in two tranches and as on date, an amount of Rs.15,98,712/-is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant being the balance sale consideration. The defendant says that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant and had filed the suit by suppressing the fact of the agreement and payment of balance sale consideration. 11. The defendant says that the defendant further came to know that the plaintiff has affirmed an affidavit in connection with G.A. No. 3 of 2022 in connection with C.S. No. 156 of 2020 wherein the plaintiff has taken a specific stand that the plaintiff did not have any control over the S.B. Account No. 910010017274507 maintained with the Axis Bank Limited as the said account was opened by the finance broker, Shri Shanti Kumar Surana in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has handed over blank signed cheque to said Shri Shanti Kumar Surana. 12. The defendant denied with regard to issuance of accounts confirmation dated 1st April 2016, 1st April 2017 and 1st April 2018 and has denied the signatures appearing in the said confirmation. 13. Before dealing with the contention whether the defendant has unconditionally and unequivocally admitted and acknowledged the amount claimed by the plaintiff, this Court intent to decide the question whether the plaintiff is engaged in the business of money lending and requires money lending license in terms of The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. Section 2(9) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, defines a lender as a person, who advances a loan and includes a money lender. Section 2(13) of the said Act defines a money–lender. Money-lender means a person, who carries on business of money-lending in West Bengal or who has a place of such business in West Bengal and includes a pawnee as defined in Section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Under Section 2(14) of the said Act, money lending business and business of money lending mean the business of advancing loans either solely or in conjunction with any other business. 14. Under Section 2(14) of the said Act, money lending business and business of money lending mean the business of advancing loans either solely or in conjunction with any other business. 14. In the case of Binapani Roja vs. Rabindranath Sarkar, reported in AIR 1959 Cal 213 , this Court holds that the word ‘loans’ in Section 2(14) of The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, is in plural. Therefore, in order to establish that the plaintiff is carrying on business of money lending, it must be proved that he has lent money on more than one occasion. 15. In the present case the defendant has provided the details of the six numbers of suits filed by the plaintiff against several persons being: i. C.S. No. 6 of 2022 (Surendra Singh Bengani – vs-Jagdish Kamal Gulati). ii. C.S. No.77 of 2021 (Surendra Singh Bengani – vs-Vikash Baid). iii. C.S. No. 88 of 2021 (Surendra Singh Bengani –vs-Shyam Sunder Mundhra). iv. C.S. No. 50 of 2021 (Surendra Singh Bengani –vs-Jaideep Halwasiya). v. C.S. No.7 of 2022 (Surendra Singh Bengani -vs-Madhukar Nowlakha). vi. C.S. No. 9 of 2022 (Surendra Singh Bengani – vs-Sunil Marwaha alias Sunil Kumar Marwah). In all the above cases, the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of amount lent and advance by the plaintiff to the defendant. In this case also it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has lent and advanced to the defendant and the defendant failed to return the amount along with interest. Section 8 and Section 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 reads as follows: “8. Money-lending business not to be carried on except under licence. – After such date not less than six months after the commencement of this Act as the [State] Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, no money-lender shall carry on the business of money-lending unless he holds an effective licence. Explanation.-An effective licence for the purposes of this Act comprises a licence issued to a person who is not disqualified for holding a licence. 13. Stay of suit when money-lender does not hold licence. Explanation.-An effective licence for the purposes of this Act comprises a licence issued to a person who is not disqualified for holding a licence. 13. Stay of suit when money-lender does not hold licence. – (1) No Court shall pass a decree or order 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 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 moneylender held an effective licence. (2) If during the trial of a suit to which subsection (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. (3) If the money-lender fails to pay the penalty within the period fixed under sub-section (2) or within such further time as the Court may allow, the Court shall dismiss the suit: if the moneylender pays the penalty within such period, the Court shall proceed with the suit. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a claim for a set-off by or on behalf of a moneylender. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a claim for a set-off by or on behalf of a moneylender. (5) In this section, the expression "money-lender" includes an assignee of a money-lender, if the Court is satisfied that the assignment was made for the purposes of avoiding the payment of licence fee and penalty which may be ordered to be paid under this section.” In the case of Swaika Vanaspati Products Limited vs. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. reported in 2000 CWN 1130, this Court held that: “The position of law as emerges from a combined reading of these three provisions in Subsection (1), (2), and (3) is that even though there is no embargo or prohibition as such about the maintainability or the filling of suit with respect to a loan by an unlicensed money lender, the court in such a suit is precluded from passing a decree, or an order in favour of such a moneylender with respect to such a loan if the money lender does not hold a valid license as per the Act. If however have a license, an obligation is cast upon the court to call upon the Plaintiff money lender to pay penalty which cannot be more than three times the license fee, as prescribed in Section 10 of the Act. The expression “the court shall, before proceeding with the suit, require the money lender to pay” clearly suggests that the legislature intended that in every case where the suit has been instituted by an unlicensed money lender, it shall be mandatory for the court to give an opportunity to the money-lender/plaintiff to pay the penalty and, as per the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of the Act, if the money lender avails of this opportunity and pays the penalty, the court shall proceed with the suit. Undoubtedly, however, if the money-lender fails to pay the penalty the court shall dismiss the suit.” While interpreting the provisions of Sub-Sections (9), (13) and (14) of Section 2 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Kamal Kumar vs. Birendra Pr. Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 1979 Cal 197 holds that money–lender is a person, who carries on business of “money–lending” in a regular course of business but mere “lender” is not so. 16. Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 1979 Cal 197 holds that money–lender is a person, who carries on business of “money–lending” in a regular course of business but mere “lender” is not so. 16. Considering the above circumstances, read with Sections 2(9), 2(13) and 2(14) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, this Court finds that the plaintiff is running the business of “money-lending” and admittedly the plaintiff has no license under the said Act thus as per Section 13(1) of the Act, no decree can be passed in the instant application. 17. This Court has held that the plaintiff is having the business of moneylending without any license and no decree can be passed, thus this Court has not gone into the facts whether the defendant has unconditionally and unequivocally admitted and acknowledged the amount claimed by the plaintiff. 18. In view of the above, G.A. No. 3 of 2023 is dismissed.