JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order of the Munsif refusing to consider an application made by him under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money- Lenders Act in an execution case instituted by Opposite Party No. 1, the decree-holder. He apparently felt nervous as to the result and stated that he did not want to proceed with his case which was accordingly dismissed. The Munsif then refused to consider the Petitioner's application on the ground that it fell with the execution case. The Petitioner had a right to make the application and to have the decision of it by the Court; he could not be side-tracked by such a transparent dodge. That, however, is not sufficient to dispose of the matter. It is contended by Opposite Party No. 1 that the application was incompetent in view of sec. 37A (3) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act which is in these terms:-- No Board shall entertain an application under sub-sec. (2) if such application relates to a debt in respect of which a Civil Court has previously entertained a suit instituted or an application made under the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 and no Civil Court shall entertain a suit instituted or an application made under the provisions of that Act if such suit or application relates to a debt in respect of which a Board has previously entertained an application made under the previsions of this section. 2. The Petitioner made an earlier application under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act which was the subject-matter of Misc. Judicial Case No. 46 of 1941. Subsequently he filed an application for relief under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act before the Debt Settlement Board on the 17th June, 1943, which application is still pending. The present application was filed on the 28th March, 1944. 3. In order to succeed the Opposite Party must show--(1) that Misc. Judicial Case No. 46 of 1941 was not entertained by the Munsif and (2) that the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act has been entertained by the Debt Settlement Board. 4. The meaning of this word "entertained" has been recently considered by Mukherjea and Ellis, JJ., in four cases. Judicial Case No. 46 of 1941 was not entertained by the Munsif and (2) that the application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act has been entertained by the Debt Settlement Board. 4. The meaning of this word "entertained" has been recently considered by Mukherjea and Ellis, JJ., in four cases. The one most relevant to the facts of the present case is that in the case of Sashi Bhasan Basuri v. Matibala Dassi 49 C. W. N. 154 (1944), where Mukherjea, J., said this:-- The Legislature, it will be seen, uses the word 'entertained' and not decided, and we think that to bring a case within the purview of this sub-Section, it is not necessary that a suit or application under the Money-Lenders Act must be heard and decided by a Civil Court previous to the presentation of an application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act before a Debt Settlement Board. To 'entertain' is to 'admit a thing for consideration,' and when a suit or proceeding is not thrown out in limine, but the Court receives it for consideration and disposal according to law, it can certainly be regarded as entertaining a suit or proceeding, no matter whatever the ultimate decision might be. 5. In Misc. Judicial Case No. 46 of 1941 the Munsif held that the application was incompetent as no proceedings were pending when it was filed. Although, prima jack, the Petitioner had a very good case, the Munsif refused to look at it ; in other words, he threw it out in limine. 6. Following the test laid down in this decision the Munsif did not entertain the former application of the Petitioner but the Board has entertained his application under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The Rule is accordingly discharged. I make no order as to cost.