JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - It is not necessary for us to advert to all the points that have been raised by Mr. Das in support of the Rule, for, in our opinion, this Rule should he made absolute on the short ground that the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act could not be entertained by the Debt Settlement Board by reason of sub-sec. (3) of that section. It is not disputed that previous to the presentation of the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act before the Debt Settlement Board, the heirs of Sonaulla did start a proceeding in Civil Court for obtaining relief under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. This application was heard by the Court and was dismissed on August 25th. 1941, on the ground that the loan was a commercial loan. 2. In sub sec. (3) of sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, the word used is "entertain," and as we have already held in a very recent case [Sushi Bhusan Basuri v. Mati Bala Dasi Since reported 49 C. W. N. 154], an application would be deemed to be entertained if it is admitted to consideration and not thrown cut in limine, whatever the ultimate decision might be. In the present case, the application was considered on its merit, and eventually dismissed after taking evidence. It is certainly not the intention of the legislature that a debtor would have the right to come to a Debt Settlement Board under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act unless he has got a decision in his favour previously under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The remedy provided by sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act is of an exceptional character, and in regard to restoration of properties sold in execution of a rent decree or a money decree the legislature has on grounds of police made the remedies under the two Acts, namely, the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and the Bengal Money-Lenders Act alternative and not coexistent. If, therefore, the debtor exercises his right under one of these Acts, he cannot avail himself of the remedy provided by the other. 3. If, therefore, the debtor exercises his right under one of these Acts, he cannot avail himself of the remedy provided by the other. 3. As we hare said already, the application in the case before us was not only entertained but was actually heard, and the fact that the decision was adverse to the debtor does not affect the application of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act at all. The position might have been different if the application had been thrown out by the Civil Court at its inception or the debtor had been allowed to withdraw the same with liberty to institute a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action. As matters stand, we are definitely of opinion that sub-sec. (3) operates as a bar and consequently the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debt ors Act should be dismissed. This Rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the learned District judge is set aside and it is ordered that the application before the Debt Settlement Board is dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this Court. Ellis, J. I agree.