( 1 ) THE question that has been referred by the Division Bench for decision by this Full Bench is "whether in the face of sub-sec (4) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act (Act No. V of 1349 Fasli) and Rule 16 of the rules framed under the said Act, the renewal of a licence subsequent to the date of expiry of the licence, on an application made prior to the date of expiry dates back to the date of the application, so as to say that the renewal is only a continuation of the licence already granted to the money lender"?

( 2 ) IT is necessary to state a few facts to appreciate the point that arises in this case. The respondents herein filed the suit O. S. 14 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Narayanpet, on 20-9-1968 for recovery of Rs. 2,000. 00 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the deceased Ushanna in favour of the plaintiff on 1-9-1965. The defendants are the legal representatives of the maker of the promissory note. Besides various pleas taken up by them in the suit they also pleaded that the plaintiff was a money lender coming under the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act, that inasmuch as he had no licence on the date of the promissor