JUDGMENT 1. On the 8th March, 1929, Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 executed a mortgage in favour of the Plaintiffs securing the sum of Rs. 9,986. This sum was made up of three items namely, a sum of Rs. 1,984-3-10 gandas, Rs. 6,255-12-6 gandas and Rs. 1,746. The bond recites that the mortgagors required the first-mentioned amount for the purposes of purchasing one half-share of a mill site, that the second and the third sums of Rs. 6,255-12-6 gandas and Rs. 1,984-3-10 gandas had been advanced to them by the mortgagees from time to time for the purposes of equipping their mill and for the purposes of enabling them to carry on their milling business. It is now admitted by the Appellant that the third sum represented the money which was required for the purpose of purchasing paddy to be milled into rice at the mill which was to be sold by the mortgagors. Thereafter Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 sold the share of the mortgaged premises (which was the mill and the mill site) to Defendant No. 7 who became a partner of their milling and rice business. A sum of Rs. 4,000 had been paid towards the principal and a sum of about Rs. 10,000 towards interest before the filing of this suit, which is one to enforce the claim under the said mortgage. The learned Subordinate judge has passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 12,498 odd of which Rs. 5,986 represents the outstanding principal and for Rs. 6,512 odd which represents the arrears of interest. Defendant No. 7 has preferred this appeal. Both in the lower Court and before us his contentions are of a two-fold nature: (1) that the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 (Act X of 1940) governs this case and therefore the mortgagees are entitled to a decree for a far lesser sum than what has been awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge; and (2) that in any event the provisions of sec. 4 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1933 are applicable and in that case the decree as passed by the learned Subordinate Judge should be reduced by the sum of Rs. 526 odd. The first point, namely, whether the Money-Lenders Act of 1940 is applicable or not depends upon the question whether the loan secured by the mortgage in suit was a commercial loan or not. 526 odd. The first point, namely, whether the Money-Lenders Act of 1940 is applicable or not depends upon the question whether the loan secured by the mortgage in suit was a commercial loan or not. On that point the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it was a commercial loan. The mortgage bond itself recites the purposes for which the loan was taken. The entire amount was for the purpose of trade. It is not necessary for us to review the evidence in detail. The evidence has been considered in great detail by the learned Subordinate Judge and we agree with his conclusions. The loan is therefore not affected by the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1940. As there is no exception in the case of a commercial loan in the Bengal Money-lenders Act of 1933, the provisions of that Act would be applicable to this suit. On that point there is no controversy. But the question is whether the decree that has been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge contravenes any of the provisions of the said Act. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant says that the provisions of sec. 4 of that Act have been contravened by the learned Subordinate Judge. We will have to consider the true scope of the said section. One thing is clear that payments towards interest made before the institution of the suit are not to be reckoned, because that section says that the arrears of interest in respect of which a decree can be given should not exceed the principal of the loan. The whole controversy centres upon the words "principal of the loan" used in that section. The original advance was Rs. 9,986. If that be taken to be the principal of the loan within the meaning of sec. 4, the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge is not against the provisions of that section, because the sum which had been decreed for interests is less than Rs. 9,986; the amount is, as we have said, Rs. 6,512 odd. 2. Before the suit a sum of Rs. 4,000 had been paid towards principal and therefore at the date of the suit the sum of Rs. 5,986 was the outstanding principal. The learned Advocate for the Appellant contends that that must be taken to be the principal of the loan within the meaning of sec. 6,512 odd. 2. Before the suit a sum of Rs. 4,000 had been paid towards principal and therefore at the date of the suit the sum of Rs. 5,986 was the outstanding principal. The learned Advocate for the Appellant contends that that must be taken to be the principal of the loan within the meaning of sec. 4 and therefore the decree for interest cannot exceed the said sum. If his contention be correct, the decree for interest is Rs. 526 odd in excess of what would be allowable under sec. 4 of the Act. The meaning of the phrase " principal of the loan " used in sec. 4 has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhanya Basak v. Priya Sankar Sen 44 C.W.N. 1133 (1940). That phrase was taken to mean the actual advance that was made by the creditor to the debtor. In our judgment, the principal of the loan would, according to that interpretation be the sum of Rs. 9,986 which was the actual advance and not the balance which was left after part-payment had been made towards the principal. The acceptance of the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant would mean the addition of the word "outstanding" before the phrase "principal of the loan" in sec. 4. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the amount of interest that has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge does not contravene the provisions of sec. 4 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 3. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. Let the records be sent down as early as possible.