( 1 ) ON a reference made by Tare, J. , the question referred to the Full Bench is : "whether the suit of a plaintiff money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent to the moneylending transactions. "

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are simple and may be stated in a few words. On the foot of a promissory note dated 19 March 1956, the applicant, who is a moneylender, advanced to the non-applicants a ban of:rs. 850. When the applicant subsequently filed a suit to recover the amount with interest from the non-applicants they resisted it. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on two grounds. The applicant did not produce her certificate of registration required to be taken under Section 11-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Act ). She did not prove that the non-applicants executed the promissory note or that there was any consideration for it. Thereupon, the a