JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This is a Rule directed against an order of the Munsif refusing to re-open a decree on an application made by the Petitioners under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The application was made in course of an execution proceeding for sale of the property after the final decree had been passed. The original preliminary decree gave interest at a higher rate than that permitted under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. It cannot therefore be disputed that the Petitioner is entitled to relief. 2. In the Munsif's Court the Petitioner made the extreme case that the Opposite Party was only entitled to interest at eight per cent. up to the date of the passing of the original preliminary decree. That is entirely to ignore the nature of a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit. As soon as the matter is re-opened there will be another period of grace and the Petitioner will have to be given an opportunity of redeeming the property. Under the provisions of Or. 34 of the CPC the Opposite Party will be entitled to interest up to the day of grace. This has been clearly explained in a recent decision by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Promode Nath Sinha v. Sm. Raseswari Dassi 46 C. W. N. 133 (1941). 3. It is conceded that if this is done the Petitioner will have to pay a larger sum by way of interest in order to redeem the property than he had to pay under the original preliminary decree. It is on this ground that the learned Munsif refused to make an order because he thought that it would do harm to the Petitioner. 4. I am bound to say that there is an air of unreality in holding that the Petitioner will be injured by an order which the Petitioner wants and of which the Opposite Party seeks to deprive him. It is for the Petitioner and no! the Opposite Party to say whether he will derive any benefit from the order. He will certainly save the property from immediate sale and he will be given another chance to redeem by installments. It is therefore impossible to say that he cannot derive any benefit from re-opening the decree; if he thinks that it will benefit him, he is entitled to have it. On behalf of the Petitioner Mr. He will certainly save the property from immediate sale and he will be given another chance to redeem by installments. It is therefore impossible to say that he cannot derive any benefit from re-opening the decree; if he thinks that it will benefit him, he is entitled to have it. On behalf of the Petitioner Mr. Das states that he will be benefited. 5. The parties are unable to agree as to the number of installments that ought to be granted and on a further question whether any condition ought to be imposed. It is impossible for me to deal with the matter finally except by agreement. The Munsif will have to decide these points. Either of the parties will be entitled to appeal against that decision. 6. The Rule is accordingly made absolute, the order of the Munsif rejecting the application is set aside and he is directed to pass a new preliminary decree in accordance with law under the provisions of Or. 34 of the CPC and sec. 34 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 7. The parties can adduce evidence if necessary. I make no order as to costs.