JUDGMENT 1. Having heard Mr. Roy for the Petitioners and Dr. Sudish Roy for the Opposite Party we are of opinion that the view taken by the Court below is not right and cannot be supported. The mortgage decree in this case was for a sum of Rs. 3,400 and admittedly, the sum of Rs. 645 was paid by way of interest prior to the date of the institution of the suit. The principal sum advanced was Rs. 1,700 and consequently, taking into account the sum of Rs. 645 which was paid by the mortgagor prior to the suit, the decree undoubtedly made the borrower liable to pay more than twice the original principal of the loan. 2. Under sec. 30 (1) (a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, no borrower is liable, after the commencement of the Act, to pay more than double the principal of the original loan. The borrower is, therefore, prima facie entitled in this case to be released from the excess liability imposed upon him in contravention of the provisions of sec. 30 (1) (a), and for that purpose, the decree is liable to be re-opened. 3. Dr. Roy who appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party has argued before us that in this case the mortgaged property was put up to sale some time in the year 1937 which was long before the passing of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, and by that sale, only a sum of Rs. 2,500 was realised. No attempt was made by the mortgagee decree-holder to apply for a personal decree under Or. 34, r. 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and at the time when the order was made by the Court below, this remedy was already time-barred. He argues, therefore, that as he has not attempted to make the mortgagor liable after the commencement of the Act to pay anything in excess of what can be allowed under sec. 30 (1) (a) the decree cannot be re-opened. 4. The contention, though plausible at first sight, does not seem to us to be sound. It is not disputed that the liability of the borrower under the decree was for a sum in excess of what is permissible under sec. 30 (1) (a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. It is true that only a sum of Rs. 4. The contention, though plausible at first sight, does not seem to us to be sound. It is not disputed that the liability of the borrower under the decree was for a sum in excess of what is permissible under sec. 30 (1) (a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. It is true that only a sum of Rs. 2,500 which is less than twice the principal money was realised prior to the passing of the Act, but even at the date when the Act was passed the liability of the debtor still remained. The decree was not satisfied in any sense of the word; and certainly when the Act was passed and when the application by way of review under sec. 36 (6) (a) (ii) was made, the remedy of the mortgagee decree-holder to apply for a personal decree under Or. 34, r. 6 of the CPC was not barred. The-fact that subsequently no steps were taken by the mortgagee decree-holder in this direction and he allowed the remedy to be barred does not certainly affect the rights of the mortgagor to have the decree re-opened under the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. We think, therefore, that in this case, the Court below should have reopened the decree. 5. The result, therefore, is that we make this Rule absolute and set aside the order made by the Court below. The case will go back to the trial Judge, and we direct him to make a new decree in conformity with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act incorporating the terms of els. (c), (d) and (e) of sec. 36 (2) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. We further direct that the Court below should make the mortgage money payable in eight equal annual instalments, and the first instalment will be made payable on the 30th Aswin, 1350 B. S. We make no order as to costs in this Court. Pal, J. I agree.