S.K.JHA, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against the judgment of reversal. When the case was placed for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court, namely, N.P. Singh, J., he referred this case to Division Bench by his order dated 22-12-1980, and the point formulated for decision is:

"Whether Section 8 read with Secs.4, 5 and the definition of Money-lender in Sec.2(k) of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 , places a bar on Court from entertaining a suit filed by a person who claims to have made a casual advance to the defendant?"

Hence this case before us.

2 The facts are not in controversy. The appellants advanced a loan to the mother of the defendant. That fact is not denied. The concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below are that it was a case of a stray loan because the mother of the respondent happened to be a close neighbour and a Mausi by village relationship as she had fallen in dire necessity of having such an accommodation loan.

3. It is admitted at all hand that if it were a case under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, (Bihar Act 3 of 1938), as modified by the Act of 1939, (in short, the old Act), Sec. 4 of that Act could not have sto