JUDGMENT Bennett and Misra, JJ. - This application u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act has been referred to a Bench. In his referring order the learned single Judge of this Court mentions two legal questions which arise. The first is whether oral evidence is admissible to show whether payment under a bond was made towards principal or interest for the purpose of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, and the second is whether the amending Act of 1942 (Act No. XVI of 1942) has retrospective effect. 2. With regard to the latter point, it is conceded by the applicant's learned Counsel that the matter is concluded, so far as revision applications are concerned, by the decision of a Bench of this Court in Durga Prasad v. Kishuni 1942 O.A. 498 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 341 : O.W.N. 582 where it was held that an applicant in revision can not benefit by a change in the law made during the pendency of his application. 3. On the question whether oral evidence is admissible, learned Counsel concedes that there is a Bench decision of this Court against him in Zaman Khan v. Ganga 1939 O.A. 238 : O.W.N. 201, but he refers to a Calcutta case, namely, Hem Chandra Biswas v. Purna Chandra Mukherji (1918) 44 Cal 567 where it was held that a Court is entitled to find out from evidence for what purpose the payments were made. Reference was also made to the Allahabad case of Pearey Lal Vs. Mohammad Yusuf, AIR 1937 All 640 where a similar view was taken. 4. Apart, however, from the view taken by this Court in Zaman Khan v. Ganga we find that the same Bench in the case of Zaman Khan Ram Asre 1939 O.A. 252 : O.W.N. 203, held that for reasons not connected in any way with the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, referred to by it in its previous ruling, no question of oral evidence could arise. This view was based on the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 20 which reads: "Provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment" 5. This view was based on the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 20 which reads: "Provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment" 5. The first part of the headnote reads as follows: "Where the payment is made by debtor without specifying whether it was towards principal or interest then so far as the payment of interest is concerned the acknowledgment in writing must be of the payment of interest ''as such", as the words "as such" occur in relation to payment of interest in the section, which without such acknowledgment does not become interest within Section 20 of the Limitation Act". 6. It appears, therefore, on this ruling that no question of the admissibility of oral evidence can arise in such cases because oral evidence is expressly ruled out, the law requiring evidence in writing in the acknowledgment referred to 7. It is clear that the trial Court which dismissed the suit under consideration on the ground of limitation was justified in so doing on the authority of these cases, and the only course which we could take, if we were disposed to adopt a different view, would be to refer these questions to a Full Bench We are not, however, inclined to take such action, particularly as Section 20, has been amended by Act XVI of 1942, and such questions will, therefore, arise less frequently in future. 8. We accordingly dismiss this application with costs.