JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - Having heard Mr. Das for the Petitioner and Mr. Chaudhuri for the Opposite Party, we are of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge is right. As we explained in one of our recent decisions,--[Sashi Bhusan Basuri v. Moti Bala Dasi Since reported 49 C. W. N. 154], the legislature has deliberately used the word "entertained" and not "decided" in sec. 37A (3) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, and consequently, it must be held that to attract the bar created by the sub-section, it is not necessary that a suit or application must be heard and decided by a Civil Court previous to the presentation of the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. 2. As we held in that case, when a suit under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act is withdrawn on the ground of a formal defect with the permission of the Court to institute a fresh suit on the some cause of action, the suit may be taken in the eye of law to be not existent and not entertained by the Court at all, but the same considerations cannot apply to the facts of the present case where the mortgagor expressly stated in his application that the debt having been previously satisfied, he was entitled to no relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, and on that footing the suit was allowed to be withdrawn. There was and could be no question of filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and in these circumstances we think that the suit had, in fact, been entertained by a Civil Court under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 3. The result is that this Rule is discharged with costs. Hearing-fee, one gold mohur. Ellis, J. I agree.