JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This is a Rule obtained by Plaintiff, calling upon the Defendant to show cause why an order appointing a commissioner to take accounts should not be set aside. This order was passed in connection with an application under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The Petitioner obtained a decree for a certain sum of money due on a hand-note. In the course of execution a settlement was arrived at. The Opposite Party paid Rs. 100 in cash and agreed to pay further instalments of Rs. 23 a month until the whole was paid off. According to the Opposite Party the hand-note was executed on account of the balance due on two mortgages--one for Rs. 7,000 executed on the 9th of May, 1927 and the other for Rs. 3,500 executed on the 29th of June, 1931. He made an application not only to reopen the actual decree on the hand-note but also to re-open the account which closed the previous dealings on the mortgages. The question raised in this Rule is whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to go into the second matter at all. The application was made under sec. 36 (6) (a) (ii). The ordinary procedure is by a suit: but this provision provides a speedy and summary remedy within one year of the date of the commencement of the Act. The section provides that this application for review of the decree should be made to the Court which passed the decree. In the present case the decree was passed in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah. 2. It is not disputed that the suit in question is a suit to which this Act applies and that the decree was not fully satisfied by the 1st of January, 1939. There can therefore be no question that the Court was entitled to review the actual decree on the hand-note and to reduce the interest and give instalments. That, however, would give the Opposite Party little relief and does not satisfy him. He wanted to go further 'and re-open the settled account on the mortgages. 3. The first question therefore is a question of fact whether the hand-note had anything to do with the balance due on the mortgages. The Petitioner unsuccessfully tried to make out that it was an independent cash transaction. He wanted to go further 'and re-open the settled account on the mortgages. 3. The first question therefore is a question of fact whether the hand-note had anything to do with the balance due on the mortgages. The Petitioner unsuccessfully tried to make out that it was an independent cash transaction. That question has been decided against him by the learned Judge on evidence and it is quite impossible for me to interfere with it in revision. 4. The second question therefore is whether the learned Judge in the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to deal with the accounts due on the two mortgages. The mortgages certainly could not have been enforced in this Court and Mr. Deb's contention is that, if the Opposite Party is not satisfied with the re-opening of the decree on the hand-note, he should institute a suit in the regular Courts. 5. Now the wording appears to me to be perfectly clear. The Court is entitled in reviewing the decree, to exercise any of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) and (2). That includes powers to re-open any account already taken between the parties. That power is conferred upon it notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. The result is that if there were any law for the time being in force forbidding the Small Cause Court to investigate this matter, that law would be abrogated. I am, however, not satisfied that there is any such law. After all, the Court is merely discovering whether in view of these new provisions the decree on the hand-note ought ever to have been made. There is no pretence that the mortgages can be enforced or that any sum can be decreed in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Not only can I find nothing illegal in these provisions, there is nothing unreasonable in them either. There is no reason why debtors against whom decrees have been passed in a Small Cause Court should be deprived of the benefit of this temporary and cheap remedy. 6. It was common ground that there was no reason for appointing a commissioner. This will merely involve the parties in useless expense. I understand from the learned Advocates that it is highly improbable that there will be any dispute as to the payments that were actually made by the Opposite Party. 7. 6. It was common ground that there was no reason for appointing a commissioner. This will merely involve the parties in useless expense. I understand from the learned Advocates that it is highly improbable that there will be any dispute as to the payments that were actually made by the Opposite Party. 7. I therefore set aside the order for the appointment of a commissioner. Within a month of the arrival of the record in the Lower Court the Defendant will file a list of payments which he alleges he made. If the Plaintiff disputes any of these payments, the learned Judge will decide the matter on evidence. If the Defendant fails to supply such a list, the learned Judge will take such evidence as the parties desire and in that case the Defendant will pay the costs in any event. I make no order as to costs in this Rule.