JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision against an order passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly dismissing the judgment-debtor's application in an execution proceeding claiming the benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. He claimed also the benefits of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. Learned Judge held that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to the benefit of any of these two Acts. 2. In this ravision it is conceded that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, but it is pressed that the benefits of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 are available to the applicant, Sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940 lays down that the enactments mentioned in the record schedule are repealed to the extent mentioned in the fourth column thereof. Now the relevant portion in the fourth column of the second schedule runs as follows: Sections 3 to 8, 28 to 31, 37, 38, 40 to 42, and Schedule 1 to Schedule V, except in their application to advances made before the 1st day of June, 1940 not being loans as defined in this Act, "have been repealed. On a literal interpretation of the above provisions, it is clear that Sections 3 and 4, the benefits of which are claimed by the applicant, were repealed by Section 27 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act in respect of the loan on the basis of which the decree under consideration was passed because this decree was passed on a pronote dated the 31st August, 1944 Section 27 of the Debt Redemption Act repeals certain provisions of the U P. Agriculturists' Relies Act altogether in respect of advances made after the 1st day of June, 1940. The limited exception has been made only in respect of certain advances made before the 1st day of June, 1940. As in the present case the advance was made after the 1st day of June, 1940, so in respect of it the aforesaid provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relies Act stand repealed. 3. The limited exception has been made only in respect of certain advances made before the 1st day of June, 1940. As in the present case the advance was made after the 1st day of June, 1940, so in respect of it the aforesaid provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relies Act stand repealed. 3. It has been argued by the learned Counsel lor the applicant that this interpretation would lead to the conclusion that in regard to loans made after the 1st day of June, 1940, the judgment-debtor is not entitled to the benefits of either the Debt Redemption Act or the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The answer to that is simple. For the advances made after the 1st day of June, 1940, the provisions of the U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, 1540 apply. The legislature enacted two measures simultaneously, The Debt Redemption Act was enacted to apply to advances made before the 1st day of June 1940 and the Regulation of Agricultural Credir(sic) Act, 1940 was enacted to regulate the advances made after that date. It is true that in the last mentioned Act there are to provisions relating to the late of interest but we have the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1981 which was amended in this Provincehei 1934 by Act XXIII of 1934. Evidently to intention was that so far as the rate of interest is concerned in respect of advances made after the 1st day of June, 1940, the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, as amended in this Province, were adequate. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Full Bench case of Bhagwan Das v. . Goswami Radhey Lal reported in 1945 A. W. R. 218. That is a case distinguishable from the present one. In that case the Plaintiff bad made a declaration u/s 4 of the Debt Redemption Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Full Bench case of Bhagwan Das v. . Goswami Radhey Lal reported in 1945 A. W. R. 218. That is a case distinguishable from the present one. In that case the Plaintiff bad made a declaration u/s 4 of the Debt Redemption Act. Now it will be seen from Sub-section (1) of Section 4 that where a creditor makes a declaration in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) then the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to a suit fcr the recovery of the loan from an agricultural It was on the interpretation of this provision that it was held that in that particular case the provisions of Section 27 of the Debt Redemption Act enacting the repeal of certain provisions of Agriculturists' Relief Act would not be applicable. In the present case we have no declaration u/s 4 of the Debt Redemption Act. That ruling is, therefore, not applicable. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied in particular upon the following observations in the above authority- There was also an argument that the provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act were repealed once for all by the Debt Redemption Act and could not be rest to (sic) by the making of a declaration. We may however, point out that the Sections are not absolutely repealed. They are repeated only in respect of loans as defined in the Debt Redemption Act and do not apply to the suit to which the Debt Redemption Act applies. The suit with which we are concerned is one to which the Debt Redemption Act did not apply. We are, therefore, of opinion that the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act were rightly applied in the suit by the learned Judge of the Court below. 5. These observations must be read with reference to the special facts of that case and not divorced from the context. We are, therefore, of opinion that the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act were rightly applied in the suit by the learned Judge of the Court below. 5. These observations must be read with reference to the special facts of that case and not divorced from the context. They were made with reference to a case in which the creditor had made a declaration u/s 4 of the Debt Redemption in Act which is not the position in the prersent case, On a true interpretation of Section 27, the benefits conferred by the Agriculturists' Relief Act are not available to the judgment-debtor applicant because the advance in the present case was made after June, 1940 and the repeal is his case is thus absolute. If the intention of the legislature had been that the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act would apply to all cases where the Debt Redemption Act was not applicable we would have found a clear indication to that effect in the language of Section 27 of the Debt Redemption Act. There is no such indication that section. 6. The revision falls and it is hereby dismissed with costs.