JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - This is a Rule obtained in an application under sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The Petitioner before us was the Defendant in a suit instituted by the Plaintiff Opposite Party in the Court of the Second Munsif at Tamluk exercising powers of a Small Cause Court Judge, for recovery of money due on a hatchitta. The suit was resisted by the Petitioner on a variety of grounds all of which were overruled by the Court below and the suit was decreed with costs. Mr. Janah who appears in support of the Rule has challenged the propriety of the decision of the Court below on one ground. His contention is that the suit is time-barred and the Court of appeal below erred in law in holding that the Plaintiff was entitled to an extension of the period of limitation under sec. 52 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. To appreciate this contention it will be necessary to state a few facts. The hat-chitta upon which the suit was based was executed on the 18th August, 1934. Admittedly there were three payments on account of this hat-chitta all of which were endorsed on the back of it. The first payment is dated the 26th August, 1934, the second payment was made on the 6th June, 1937 and the third and the last one is dated the 11th November, 1940. Mr. Janah contends that there being an interval of more than three years between the second and the third payments the third cannot be availed of by the Plaintiff for the purpose of saving limitation. The Court below got over this difficulty by saying that as a proceeding in respect of the self-same debt' was pending before the Debt Settlement Board from the 30th May, 1940 to the 7th November, 1940, the Plaintiff was entitled to claim exemption of this period and it was not disputed that if this period was allowed to him, the suit would be well within time. Mr. Mr. Janah argues that as the suit was instituted in the Court of a Judge exercising Small Cause Court powers which is not a Civil Court within the definition given in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, the Plaintiff could not be said to have been debarred in any way by the provisions of the said Act from instituting the suit at the proper time and secs. 33 and 34 of the Act do not apply to a proceeding before a Small Cause Court which is not a Civil Court within the meaning of the Act. In our opinion this contention is not well-founded and cannot prevail. 2. Sec. 52 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act stands as follows:-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, when the period of limitation is calculated for any application, suit or appeal regarding a debt which has been the subject of any proceedings under this Act, the time during which such proceedings continued and the time during which the person interested in such debt was debarred by any provision of this Act from making or instituting the application, suit or appeal, or executing the decree in question, as the case may be, shall be excluded. 3. It will be seen, therefore, that the section provides for the different and independent periods and the litigant is entitled to claim exemption of both of them if the conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled. He is in the first place entitled to deduct the period during which a proceeding in respect of the same debt was pending before the Debt Settlement Board, irrespective of the fact as to whether he was or was not debarred by the provisions of this Act from filing a suit or making any application in respect of the sum in the Civil Court. The provision made in the latter part of the section is an additional provision which is not in any way dependent upon what is stated in the earlier part of the section. We are, further, of opinion that as the suit in this case was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Tamluk who was invested with Small Cause Court powers under the provisions of sec. We are, further, of opinion that as the suit in this case was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Tamluk who was invested with Small Cause Court powers under the provisions of sec. 25 of the Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (Act XII of 1887), such Court was a Civil Court within the meaning of the definition given in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. This was held by Mr. Justice Roxburgh in Fazal Ahmed Chowdhury v. Etim Ali Chowdhury (1) and was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Reference No. 8 of 1941. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Court below is right. The Rule is discharged with costs-- hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur. Blank, J. I agree