JUDGMENT 1. In our opinion, this Rule should be made absolute. As we have pointed out recently on more occasions than one [vide our judgment in Civil Revision Case No. 1672 of 1944, Sashi Bhusan Basuri v. Mati Bala Dasi Since Reported 49 C. W. N. 154], the Legislature in sec. 37A (3) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act has deliberately used the word "entertained" and not "decided." To entertain is to admit to consideration, and it is not necessary that a matter should be heard and decided by a Civil Court under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act before it can operate as a bar to a proceeding under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The position may undoubtedly be different where a suit or an application is thrown out in limine or it is withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action. 2. In the case before us, the application under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act was once dismissed for default. On the judgment-debtors' application, it was restored to file and then after certain proceedings, it was again dismissed for non-prosecution. In these circumstances, we are not prepared to say that the application was not entertained by the Civil Court under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 3. The result is that the Appellate Officer was right in saying that the bar under sec. 37A (3) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act would be attracted to the facts of this case. 4. We, therefore, make this Rule absolute, set aside the order of the District judge and restore that of the Appellate Officer. We make no order as to costs in this Court.