JUDGMENT Mitter, J. - In the year 1927 the Respondents before us borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,600 from the Appellants. A sum of Rs. 38 was paid in 1930. Interest then due on the original loan was converted into principal and a simple bond was given by the debtors in that year for Rs. 2,850. This sum according to the terms of the bond was to carry interest at the rate of 30 per cent. a year. A suit was brought on the bond, which terminated in a decree on the 16th November, 1931, for the sum of Rs. 3,990 and odd. The decree was put into execution in 1932. At the Court sale 11 items of immovable property were purchased by the decree-holder himself and another person, S. Mukherjee, for the sum of Rs. 2,057. The sale was on the 6th of January, 1933. In due course that sale was confirmed on the 8th of October, 1936. In August, 1938, the auction-purchasers, namely, the decree-holder and S. Mukherjee, took possession. On the 18th March, 1940, the decree-holder put in an application for execution to realise the balance of the decretal amount. That application for execution attracted the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act to the suit for the recovery of the loan. This execution was, however, not proceeded on. It was dismissed for default on the 9th of April, 1940. But the fact of dismissal is not material in view of the definition of a suit to which the Act applies, as given in sec. 2, sub-sec. (22) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. On the 6th February, 1941, the borrowers made an application under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act for relief. As the decree was passed allowing interest at the rate of 30 per cent. a year, the learned Subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the borrowers were entitled to relief. He re-opened the decree, passed a new decree for the sum of Rs. 2,832-1-6, directed the payment of the said amount in 20 equal annual instalments and restored possession of half share of the 11 items of property to the borrowers on the footing that the share of the decree-holder purchaser was equal to the share of the stranger purchaser, S. Mukherjee. He made the consequential order in terms of sec. 36, sub-sec. (2), cl. (e) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. He made the consequential order in terms of sec. 36, sub-sec. (2), cl. (e) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The decree-holder has preferred this appeal. Dr. Sen Gupta appearing for him raises two points: (1) that in view of the fact that the purchase was made by the decree-holder along with a stranger, the order for restoration of possession to the judgment-debtor is bad in law; and (2) that in any event the learned Subordinate Judge ought not to have given as many as 20 instalments. We cannot accept his contention on the first point. The share of S. Mukherjee vis-a-vis the decree-holder is known. The learned Subordinate Judge observed in his judgment that they had equal shares in the properties which they purchased at the Court sale. That finding is supported by evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge limited his order for restoration of possession to the share of the decree-holder purchaser and he has not by his order affected the share purchased by the stranger, S. Mukherjee. The learned Subordinate Judge had reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers given in sec. 36 would give relief to the borrowers, because in the re-opened decree interest far in excess of that provided for in sec. 30 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act had been given. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore, right in re-opening the decree. He had no option but to re-open the decree. Sub-sec. (2)(c) of sec. 36 provides that if in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) the Court re-opens a decree, the Court shall order restoration to the judgment-debtor of such property, if any, of the judgment-debtor, acquired by the decree-holder in consequence of the execution of the re-opened decree. This power to restore is subject only to the limitation provided for in cl. (b) of that sub-section. The property in respect of which the restoration order has been made was the pro--perty of the judgment-debtor and at the date of the application under sec. 36 by the judgment-debtor it was in the possession of the decree-holder and the decree-holder was in possession, in consequence of the execution of the re-opened decree. There is no way of getting out of the plain words of sub-sec. (2), cl. (c) of sec. 36 of the Act. We accordingly overrule this point. 2. 36 by the judgment-debtor it was in the possession of the decree-holder and the decree-holder was in possession, in consequence of the execution of the re-opened decree. There is no way of getting out of the plain words of sub-sec. (2), cl. (c) of sec. 36 of the Act. We accordingly overrule this point. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge has given 20 instalments on the evidence as it stood before him. Before us an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the decree-holder Appellant with an annexure. That affidavit shows that the judgment-debtors sold their interest in the said 11 items of property and the annexure which is a kabala, shows that the purchaser, who is a solvent man, undertook to pay the instalments of the new decree. In the circumstances we do not think that the order for instalment should be maintained. 3. The order that we make is that the balance of the new decree is to be paid within eight months from this date. If the amount is not paid, the decree-holder would be entitled to get back the half-share of the property, that is to say the share which the decree-holder had purchased and which has been restored to the possession of the judgment-debtor and the terms of d. (e) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-headers Act, would apply. We make no order as to costs. The cross-objection is not pressed. It is dismissed but without costs. Waight, J. I agree.