JUDGMENT Sen, J. - This is an application by a mortgagor judgment-debtor for certain reliefs under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, and for the stay of the sale of the mortgaged property pending the disposal of the application. After hearing learned Counsel for the mortgagee, and the Petitioner in person, I am of opinion that this application must be dismissed inasmuch as the Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs which he claims under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 2. The first relief which he claims is that he is not liable to pay interest on the decretal amount and he wishes to get the order granting such interest set aside. 3. The relevant section regarding this matter is sec. 31 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. That section says that No court shall in any decree passed in any suit to which this Act applies (a) if the loan to which the decree relates was advanced before the Commencement of this Act, allow any interest on the decretal amount. 4. This section prohibits the Court in Certain circumstances from allowing any interest when it is about to pass a decree. It has no application to a case where the decree has already been passed before the operation of the Money-Lenders Act has come into force. There is no section in the Act which says that where in a decree already passed before the Act has come into operation the Court has allowed interest on the decretal amount, the Court may upon an application brought subsequent to the decree vary its order granting interest on the decretal amount. The section merely prohibits the Court from granting interest on the decretal amount at the time it passes the decree. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim this relief in the present circumstances. 5. The next relief claimed by the Petitioner is that he is entitled to re-open the account under sec. 36 of the Act. 6. Now, sec. 36 of the Act says that the Court shall re-open any transaction and take an account between the parties in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is that the Court should have reason to believe that the exercise of its powers under the section would give relief to the borrower. 36 of the Act. 6. Now, sec. 36 of the Act says that the Court shall re-open any transaction and take an account between the parties in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances is that the Court should have reason to believe that the exercise of its powers under the section would give relief to the borrower. In other words the Court will not re-open the account unless it has reason to believe that the re-opening of the account would entitle the borrower to get some relief under the Act. 7. In this case, no relief can be given to the borrower by re-opening the transaction. The rate of interest fixed by the mortgage is 6 per cent. Under the Act interest up to 8 per cent may be charged on a secured loan. The borrower can, therefore, get no relief so far as the rate of interest is concerned. 8. The mortgage was effected in 1935 and no question arises that the interest amounts to more than the principal sum advanced. 9. The third relief asked for by the Petitioner is that he should be given liberty to pay the decretal amount by 20 annual instalments. 10. Now, the section dealing with instalments is sec. 34 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. That section is divided into two parts so far as the question of instalments is concerned. The first part deals with instalments regarding a mortgage debt, and the second part deals with instalments in respect of other loans. This case falls within the first part, i.e., within sec. 34 (1) (a). The section says that in respect of loans to which the provisions of Or. 34 of the First Schedule of the CPC (1908) apply, on the application of the Defendant, and after hearing the Plaintiff, the Court shall in certain circumstances direct at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree under r. 2 or r. 4 of Or. 34 that the amount found due may be paid in certain instalments. 11. It is clear from the section that the order for instalments must be made at the time that the preliminary decree is passed. 12. The section makes no provision for instalments being ordered at any other time. 13. Now, in this case, the preliminary decree and the final decree have already been passed. 11. It is clear from the section that the order for instalments must be made at the time that the preliminary decree is passed. 12. The section makes no provision for instalments being ordered at any other time. 13. Now, in this case, the preliminary decree and the final decree have already been passed. The Petitioner therefore cannot get any relief by way of a decree for instalments. 14. The position is different in the case of other loans. There is provision made for instalments being granted after decree. These are all the reliefs which are prayed for, and as these reliefs cannot be granted, this petition must be dismissed with costs, which may be added to Mr. Ghose's client's claim.