JUDGMENT 1. This is a Rule directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Dacca, allowing an application of the Opposite Party under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. One of the points raised by the decree-holder creditor was that the loan was a commercial loan and consequently did not attract the operation of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The Court below negatived this contention and came to the finding that the loan was not proved to be a commercial loan. Mr. Chakravartti who appears in support of the Rule has contended before us that in coming to this finding the Court below misdirected itself on a point of law. We think that this contention is right and must prevail. The Subordinate Judge in course of his judgment observed as follows: The law requires that, to make it a commercial loan, it must be proved that it was need solely for the purpose of any business. It means that if even a portion of it is need for any other purpose and however insignificant that portion may be, it cannot be called a commercial loan. 2. This, we think, is not a correct proposition of law. Under sec. 2 (4) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, commercial loan means a loan advanced to any person to be used by such person solely for purposes of any business or concern relating to trade, etc., etc. Therefore, what is material is the intention of the parties at the time when the loan is taken and it must be intended to be used solely for business purposes, but whether it was actually used or not is not material except that it might throw some light on the original intention. This being the position, we must say that the Court below approached the point from a wrong angle altogether and his finding is vitiated by an error of law. 3. It is contended on the other side that the object of the borrower was to take the loan not for any commercial purposes but to advance it to a Bioscope Company of which he was the managing agent. There is no foundation for a case like this in the evidence. 4. 3. It is contended on the other side that the object of the borrower was to take the loan not for any commercial purposes but to advance it to a Bioscope Company of which he was the managing agent. There is no foundation for a case like this in the evidence. 4. At any rate, this matter requires further investigation and the case should go back in order that it may be considered on the evidence already on the record or on such evidence that may be adduced, as to whether the loan was a commercial loan within the meaning of sec. 2, cl. (4) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 5. The case would be disposed of In accordance with the findings that will be arrived at. We make no order for costs of this Rule. Further costs will abide the result. The application filed on the 6th January, 1942, is rejected. No order is made as to costs.