The Chief Justice.-These two appeals may be disposed of together. They arise out of suits instituted for the recovery of principal and interest on the basis of promissory notes. The defendants in each suit claimed relief in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act (IV of 1938). This Court held in Bank of Commerce, Ltd. v. Kunja Behari Kar and others1, that the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act (X of 1940), so far as they affected debts due on promissory notes, were ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. Following this judgment a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Kompalli Somayajulu v. Akella Subbarayadu2held that the corresponding provisions of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act were ultra vires the Madras Legislature. Consequently when these suits came up before the Madras High Court on appeal in March 1945, that Court disallowed the claim of the defendants to relief under that Act and decreed the suits but in each case granted a certificate under section 205 of the Constitution. Act. The defendants have appealed to this Court. On the 5th May, 1945, the Governor-General promulgated Ordinance XI of 1945, section 2(a) of which provides in effect, so far as the present appeals are concerned, that while the Ordinance remains in force the provisions of the Madras. Agriculturists’ Relief Act shall, in so far as they relate to or affect promissory notes, transactions based on promissory notes or proceedings arising out of such transactions, be deemed to be and always to have been as valid and effectual for all purposes as if they had been, in relation to such matters as aforesaid, enacted by the Central Legislature. A faint suggestion was made by Counsel for the Respondents in Civil Appeal VIII of 1945 that the validity of the Ordinance was open to question on the ground of its retrospective character, but nothing that was urged has served to raise any doubts in our minds on that score. We hold that the Ordinance is valid. The effect of section 2(a) of the Ordinance, the substance of which has been set out above, is that while the Ordinance remains in force, the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act relating to debts arising out of promissory notes must be treated as valid and operative. We hold that the Ordinance is valid. The effect of section 2(a) of the Ordinance, the substance of which has been set out above, is that while the Ordinance remains in force, the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act relating to debts arising out of promissory notes must be treated as valid and operative. We allow these appeals, but as there are other questions in each of these cases which require decision by the High Court before a final decree can be passed, we direct that these cases shall be remitted to the High Court for final disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act. We make no order as to costs in this Court. G.R./V.S. ----- Appeal allowed and case remitted.