JUDGMENT Sen, J. - This is an application under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, X of 1940, for re-opening a mortgage decree and for cancelling an order for sale of the mortgaged property which is fixed for the 21st September, 1940. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Court should re-open the account on two grounds. First, he says, that in taking the mortgage account 7 per cent compound interest was allowed to the mortgagee. He contends that by virtue of the provisions of sec. 30 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the mortgagee is not entitled to get any compound interest at all. 2. The second ground taken is that interest on the decretal amount has been granted at six per cent., and he contends, that the provisions of sec. 31 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act prohibits such interest. 3. I take up the first ground for consideration. Sec. 30 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act says, No borrower shall be liable to pay after the commencement of the Act interest at a rate per annum exceeding in the case of secured loans, 8 per cent. simple, whether such loan was advanced or such amount was paid or such decree was passed or such interest accrued before or after the commencement of this Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that these words of the section prohibit a lender getting compound interest, whether or not the compound interest would amount to less than 8 per cent. simple interest. 5. I am unable to accept this view. 6. The Act nowhere prohibits compound interest. All that sec. 30 says is that the borrower shall not be liable to pay interest at a higher rate per annum than 8 per cent. simple in the case of secured loans. 7. Now what has to be ascertained in the present case is whether the interest which the borrower has been made liable to pay exceeds the interest which would have been payable, had the rate of interest been 8 per cent. simple. It is admitted on calculation that the interest granted by the mortgage decree is less than that which would have been due, had interest been calculated at 8 per cent. simple. It may be that if the mortgage suit was brought several years hereafter, the interest calculated at 7 per cent. simple. It is admitted on calculation that the interest granted by the mortgage decree is less than that which would have been due, had interest been calculated at 8 per cent. simple. It may be that if the mortgage suit was brought several years hereafter, the interest calculated at 7 per cent. compound would have been more than the interest calculated at 8 per cent. simple. But what one has to see is whether the interest which the borrower is made liable to pay exceeds interest calculated at the rate mentioned in sec. 30. 8. I hold therefore that the Petitioner cannot (get any relief under sec. 30 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 9. I now take up for consideration the second ground upon which the Petitioner relies. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws my attention to sec. 31 of the Act and he says that by reason of the provisions of that section the Petitioner would be entitled to re-open the decree because the Court has granted interest on the decretal amount. 11. Now, there is no section in the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, so far as I am aware, which says, that if a decree is passed whereby interest on the decretal amount is granted before the Act came into force, the judgment-debtor would be entitled to have that decree set aside, or modified, by a disallowance of that portion of the decree by which interest is granted on the decretal amount. 12. The words of sec. 31 are as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, 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. Sub-sec. (b) of this section is not relevant to this case. All that sec. 31 (a.) says is that a Court shall not allow in a decree any interest on the decretal amount. Now when does a Court allow interest on the decretal amount? It allows it at the time of passing the decree. That being so, the only interpretation that can be put on sec. 31(a) is that it prohibits the Court from passing any decree in which interest on the decretal amount is allowed. That is all that section does and nothing more. 13. It allows it at the time of passing the decree. That being so, the only interpretation that can be put on sec. 31(a) is that it prohibits the Court from passing any decree in which interest on the decretal amount is allowed. That is all that section does and nothing more. 13. In the present case, the decree was passed before the Act came into force. There was then nothing to prevent the Court from allowing interest on the decretal amount and as I have said before, there is no provision in the Act which says that such a decree passed before the Act may be interfered with or varied because it allows interest on the decretal amount. 14. There are thus no grounds upon which the decree passed should be modified or interfered with. The application must therefore be dismissed with costs.