R.N. Misra, C.J.
1. The plaintiff is in revision challenging an affirming appellate judgment against him in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of an alleged promissory note dated 29-9-1969.
2. The defence was that the document which has now been produced and marked as Ext. 1 had been given as a blank paper with the defendant's signature on the revenue stamp evidencing a loan of Rs. 200/- from a different person and at the instance of the lender of Rs. 200/-, the left hand thumb impression and signature had also been affixed on the back side of that blank paper. The plaintiff obtained the document from the lender, converted it into a regular promissory note and though no loan had actually been taken, the suit was filed on the basis of the converted document.
3. Both the Courts have found as a fact that a blank paper has been converted into the alleged promissory note. They have been impressed by the feature that while witnesses state that the entire document and the signature had been in one ink, to the naked eye it appears that the writing is in one ink while the signature of the defendant-borrower is in another ink. They have also taken the other oral evidence into consideration to find that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant borrowed the amount claimed on the basis of the promissory note after its due execution. The entire oral evidence consisted of the plaintiff being examined as P. W. 1 and his usual scribe as P. W. 2. The plaintiff seems to be a money-lender in the regular course of business and if his business was extensive, the scribe who normally writes out his documents would be vitally interested in him. Keeping that aspect in view, the scribe's evidence was taken as not to come from an independent source. I do not think, I am entitled in Civil Revision to appreciate the evidence with a view to reaching a different, conclusion and accept the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
4. There is another feature which has led the Courts below to decide against the plaintiff. By the time the suit was filed, the Orissa Money-lenders Act with its amendment had come into force. Yet, the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Section 18-B of the said Act. By the time the suit was disposed of, the certificate had not come. The order sheet of the competent authority has been marked as Ext. 2. Counsel for the petitioner now relies upon it to show that the plaintiff had done his part in applying to the competent authority and had produced his accounts. It is contended that if the competent authority did not grant the appropriate certificate by disposing of the proceeding, he cannot be blamed. There is no force in this submission. Law requires that the appropriate certificate should be granted before a decree is obtained. It was open to the plaintiff to ask for quick disposal of the matter by the competent authority so that the certificate could be given to him. I also find that the appeal was disposed of about more than two years after the date which Ext. 2 bears. No steps were taken for two years to get the certificate issued so as to produce it at the appellate stage. More than two years have passed since disposal of the appeal by today. No steps have also been taken to produce the certificate and ask it to be received in evidence. In these circumstances, to entertain a request of the petitioner's counsel that the matter may be adjourned to enable the petitioner to obtain the certificate would not be at all acceptable.
5. The revision is without merit and is dismissed. No costs.