JUDGMENT Chunder, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal against a decree of the District Judge of 24-Parganas modifying that of the Subordinate Judge, third Court of the same place. It raises a point which unfortunately has not yet been decided. It was touched upon by Mitter, J., in Satya Narayan Banerji v. Radhanath Das (1087)(1941) 45 C.W.N. 1985, but at the end, his Lordship said that the observations made by him should not be taken to have decided the matter. There is, therefore, no binding decision on the point. The Plaintiff Respondent executed a mortgage for Rs. 3, 000 with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, and he filed a suit on the 3rd February, 1943, under sec. 36 (I) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act alleging that only Rs. 2, 500 was due on the mortgage at the time. He asked the transaction to be re-opened, accounts to be taken, and an installment decree to be passed. The defence was that Rs. 2, 727 including interest was due from the Plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge found that Rs. 2, 727 was due up to the date of the suit. The District Judge, on appeal, accepted the Subordinate Judge's finding as correct on this point. The Subordinate Judge granted 20 yearly instalments which were reduced by the District Judge to 15 yearly instalments; and the Subordinate Judge awarded pendente lite interest at six per cent. per annum amounting to Rs. 133 which was also affirmed by the District Judge. 2. Mr. Bose, appearing on behalf of the mortgagee Defendant Appellant, has contended that sec. 36 (I) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act does not contemplate a suit of this nature. Sec. 36 (I) mentions a suit and an application. Sec. 36 (I) no doubt allows re-opening of transactions, but sec. 36 (I) clearly lays down that the reliefs granted are to be the reliefs mentioned in that section. There is no relief as to redemption mentioned in the section. A fresh decree can be passed by the Court under cl. (2) of that section provided that there is already a decree which the Court is re-opening. All that can be done in the present case is what can be also done in an application under sec. 38, viz., accounts to be taken, and in taking accounts, re-opening of the transaction. A similar remedy is provided for under sec. 38. (2) of that section provided that there is already a decree which the Court is re-opening. All that can be done in the present case is what can be also done in an application under sec. 38, viz., accounts to be taken, and in taking accounts, re-opening of the transaction. A similar remedy is provided for under sec. 38. If Sec. 36 and sec. 38 are to have any distinction, it cannot but be said that the suit contemplated in sec. 36 (I) is a suit in which some effective new decree can be passed, i.e., where a decree can be re-opened. By a suit under sec. 36 (I) on the application of the borrower, no redemption decree can be passed for the very simple reason that the court-fee for a suit or application under sec. 36 (I) is a fixed court-fee of rupee one, while the court-fee is much more, depending on the valuation, in the case of a redemption suit. Sec. 36 (I) mentions a suit and an application. An application will be a proper procedure where execution proceedings are going on, and the suit will be the proper procedure where a decree has to be re-opened. But for merely taking accounts, the proper procedure is an application under sec. 38 of the Act. The reliefs granted by both the Courts below, viz., an instalment decree and pendente lite interest are not reliefs which can be granted under sec. 36 (I). 3. Under the circumstances, the decrees of both the Courts below must be set aside, and this must be treated as an application under sec. 38 for taking an account in accordance thereof re-opening the transactions between the parties, and the Plaintiff Respondent will be given a declaration that at the time of the institution of the suit, Rs. 2, 727 was due for principal and interest from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Other reliefs granted by the Courts below will be set aside as not within the powers of the Court to grant under sec. 36 (I) or 38 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. Each party will pay its own costs in all the Courts.