Judgment Narayan, J. 1. This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit based on a simple mortgage bond. The bond had been executed on 18-9-1925, by defendants 1 and 2 and by their deceased father Dhana Mahton in favour of the plaintiffs to secure a loan of Rs. 2250, which was to bear interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent. per month with yearly rests. It was stipulated that the entire principal amount with interest would be paid by the mortgagors on the 30th of Baisakh 1333, but only a sum of Rs. 400 was paid in Baisakh 1333 and subsequent to that, other paywents were made, all of which were endorsed on the back of the bond, the last payment haying been made on 24-4-1932. All these payments have been credited by the plaintiffs towards interest, and they have sued for the recovery of the principal amount only, which is Rs. 2250. 2. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claim on the ground of limitation, and they further contended that, according to the provisions of the Bihar Money-lenders Act, they were entitled to have the account re-opened, and that, if the account was re-opened, the plaintiffs would be found to have been overpaid. 3. The Court of first instance negatived the plea of limitation, but it held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim interest at a higher rate than 9 per cent. per annum. That Court credited the payments made by the defendants towards the principal and interest calculated at the rate of 9 per cent. and found that the plaintiffs had realised their entire dues besides Rs. 50 in excess. 4. The plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the learned Munsif and the lower appellate Court, while agreeing with the learned Munsif that the claim was not time-barred, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover Rs. 1201. The lower appellate Court arrived at this figure after deducting the total payment, Rs. 3299, from Rs. 4500, which is the double of Rs. 2250, the view of the learned Subordinate Judge being that, as under Section 7, Bihar Moneylenders Act, the plaintiffs could claim only Rs. 4500 including principal and interest, the amount paid should be deducted from this amount. 5. Mr. 3299, from Rs. 4500, which is the double of Rs. 2250, the view of the learned Subordinate Judge being that, as under Section 7, Bihar Moneylenders Act, the plaintiffs could claim only Rs. 4500 including principal and interest, the amount paid should be deducted from this amount. 5. Mr. C. P. Sinha, for the appellant, has not presented before us the contention that the claim of the plaintiffs is time-barred, but he has tried to support the Munsifs view that the defendants were entitled to have the account re-opened under Section 8, Bihar Money-lenders Act and that, if the account was re-opened, the plaintiffs would be found to have been overpaid. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 8, Bihar Moneylenders Act, are important for our purpose and they are in these terms : ".....the Court may exercise all or any of the following powers : (a) re-open the transaction, take (an account between the parties, and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any interest in excess of nine per centum simple per annum in the case of a secured loan and twelve per centum simple per annum in the case of an unsecured loan; (b) notwithstanding any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation, re-open any account already taken between them find relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any interest in excess of nine per centum simple per annum in the case of secured loan and twelve per centum simple per annum in the case of an unsecured loan." 6. There are two provisos attached to this section, and the second proviso, which is being relied upon by the plaintiffs-respondents runs as follows : "Provided further that if anything has been paid or allowed in respect of any liability for interest in excess of nine per centum simple per annum in the ease of a secured loan and twelve per centum simple per annum in the case of an unsecured loan, nothing in Clause (a) or (b) shall be deemed to require the creditor to repay any amount so paid or allowed in excess or to reduce the amount of the principal of the loan." There can be no doubt that, even though this loan had been advanced before the commencement of this Act, the Court can under Section 8 of the Act relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any interest in excess of 9 per cent. per annum. According to the proviso if any amount has been paid in respect of any liability for interest in excess of 9 per cent. per annum, nothing in Clauses (a) and (b) shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund the excess payment, nor would the excess payment go to reduce the principal. In this case, it is common ground that when the payments were made, neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee thought of crediting the payment, towards interest to be calculated at any rate less than the stipulated rate and, therefore, when the payments were endorsed on the bond, the implied understanding was that they would be credited towards interest to be calculated at the bond rate, Even the last payment, as already pointed out, was made on 24-4-1932, that is, long before the Bihar Money-lenders Act was passed, and, therefore, it is manifest that at that time the understanding must have been that the payments would be credited towards interest at the bond rate. Of course, even if the amounts paid are credited towards interest at the bond rate, they would exceed the amount of interest due and would consequently go to reduce the principal. Mr. Of course, even if the amounts paid are credited towards interest at the bond rate, they would exceed the amount of interest due and would consequently go to reduce the principal. Mr. Sinha has argued that this proviso cannot be applied to this case, because the payment were made not only towards interest but also towards principal and he has relied on the words "nothing in Clause (a) or (b) shall be deemed to reduce the amount of the principal of the loan" The obvious meaning of this proviso is that, in spite of Clauses (a) and (b) which empower the Court to reduce the interest in the case of a secured loan advanced before the commencement of the Act to 9 per cent. per annum, if any payment has been made by the debtor in excess of 9 per cent. per annum, it cannot be appropriated towards the principal, but it can by no means be interpreted to mean that, even if the amount paid is so high as to cover not only the interest payable on the date of the payment at the bond rate, but also a portion of the principal, it would not go to reduce the principal. When the Legislature used the expression "to reduce the amount of the principal of the loan", it. meant that, if the amount paid exceeds the amount of interest payable on the date of the payment, if calculated at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum, and is less tan the amount of interest payable on the date of the payment, if calculated at the bond rate, it would not go to reduce the amount of the principal. Mr. Sinha was not right in contending that one cannot pat such an interpretation on the proviso unless one imports something which does not exist therein. The Bihar Money-lenders Act has never been regarded as a very ably drafted Act, and nobody can be allowed to take advantage of the bad drafting by patting an interpretation upon the section which is against reason and common sense. The proviso was intended to help the creditor, but only to a limited extent, it being never the intention of the Legislature that even if the debtor pays something in excess of the amount of interest due calculated at the bond rate, it will not go to reduce the principal. The proviso was intended to help the creditor, but only to a limited extent, it being never the intention of the Legislature that even if the debtor pays something in excess of the amount of interest due calculated at the bond rate, it will not go to reduce the principal. It would be absurd to contend that, whenever there is a payment of interest at the bond rate as well as of a portion of the principal amount, the proviso cannot at all be applied. Whatever cornea within the purview of the proviso would be governed by it, and certainly the proviso is neither exhaustive nor so wide in terms as to cover all cases of payment it does not violate the general law that, when there is a payment covering the entire amount of interest due at the bond rate and also towards the principal, the excess payment will go to reduce the principal. In Jagatmaya Kumari V/s. Ram Bahadur Prasad, 22 P. L. T. 293 : (A. I. R. (28) 1941 Pat. 459), a Division Bench of this Court had to consider the proviso, and the head-note in the law report correctly enunciates the principle laid down in this case. The head-note runs as follows : "The proviso states that if any amount has been paid in respect of any liability for interest in excess of nine per cent. simple in the case of a secured loan, nothing in Clause (a) or (b) of the section shall be deemed to require the creditor to reduce the amount of the principal of the loan. The creditor is entitled to charge interest at the bond rate on that date and where on calculation it appears that the interest which was due to him on those dates was far in excess of the amounts actually paid, under the law the creditor was entitled to appropriate the payments towards interest and after the appropriation had been made those amounts could not be used to reduce the principal under Section 8, Bihar Money-lenders Act." When their Lordships said that, after the appropriation had been made, the amount paid could not go to reduce the principal under Section 8, their Lordships meant that the advantage which would have otherwise accrued to a debtor because of Clauses (a) and (b) would not accrue to him because of the proviso. Nothing more and nothing less is meant by this proviso, and any other view would render the proviso inept. The position, therefore, is that because of proviso 2 attached to the section the plaintiffs were at liberty to appropriate the payment towards interest at the bond rate in spite of what is contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of the section, and, if there is any payment in excess of interest calculated at the bond rate, then it will go to reduce the principal. The calculation has to be made on this basis, and we are sur-1951 Pat./55 & 56 prised to find that the learned Subordinate Judge, instead of crediting the different payments towards interest and principal on the dates the payments were made, had added them altogether and deducted the entire amount paid from the sum of Rs. 4500 which is double the principal amount of Rs. 2250. According to the general law and also according to common sense, a payment made on a certain date has to be appropriated towards interest and principal payable on that date and, if the payment exceeds the amount of interest due, it will go to reduce the principal. The decision made by the learned Subordinate Judge is, therefore, an arbitrary one and not only he did not care to read Section 8, and understand the proviso, but he did not, care to notice even what the learned Munsif had said with regard to Section 8, though the learned Munsif had, in his turn, committed a serious mistake by ignoring the provisos to Section 8. We have got a calculation made which has been accepted by both sides to be correct and, according to this calculation, if the payments made are credited towards interest at the bond rate and the principal, then the principal on the date of the last payment, that is, on 24-4-1932, would be reduced to Rs. 1185-13-9. Mr. Sinha has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Deo Nandan Prasad V/s. Ram Prasad, 23 Pat. 618 : (A. I. R. (31) 1944 Pat. 303 F. B.) and specially on the observation of Meredith J. at pp. 1185-13-9. Mr. Sinha has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Deo Nandan Prasad V/s. Ram Prasad, 23 Pat. 618 : (A. I. R. (31) 1944 Pat. 303 F. B.) and specially on the observation of Meredith J. at pp. 631 and 632 of the report, which runs as follows "It was open to the Court under Clause (b) to re-open the account between the parties notwithstanding the execution of the hand note of 1937 purporting to close previous dealings and creating a new obligation and, having done so it was open to the Court to relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of interest in excess of 12 per centum simple per annum, the loan being an unsecured one. Having regard to the nature of the provisions the word loan in the section must be used, I consider, with respect to the original loan, and not the final transaction and the original loan in the present case was Rs. 400. The proper course in applying the section would, therefore, be to take the principal as Rs. 400, calculate interest at 12 per cent. per annum simple on that sum up to the date of the suit and give a decree for the amount left unpaid as so ascertained, if anything is still found due." 7. But no further calculation is necessary in this case because the respondents learned counsel has stated that he is not going to press for a decree for any interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1185-13-9 which is payable according to the calculation already made. In this suit, therefore, there will be a decree only for Rs. 1185-13-9. Mr. Sinha probably thought that this Full Bench ruling helps him to such an extent that we can adopt the calculation made by the learned Munsif, but if such a calculation is made the proviso would be rendered nugatory and the Full Bench could never have intended that this proviso should be ignored. In this view, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs-respondents in this case are entitled to a decree for Rs. 1185-13-9 only. 8. The appeal is allowed in part and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified to this extent that the plaintiffs will have a mortgage decree for Rs. 1185-13-9 only. In this view, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs-respondents in this case are entitled to a decree for Rs. 1185-13-9 only. 8. The appeal is allowed in part and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified to this extent that the plaintiffs will have a mortgage decree for Rs. 1185-13-9 only. The defendants are allowed six months time for the payment of the decretal amount, and the plaintiffs will get interest at 9 per cent. per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 1185-13-9 from the date of the institution of the suit till the period of grace and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the entire decretal amount. The plaintiffs-respondents will get corresponding costs throughout. Because the appeal has substantially failed, the appellants will get no costs of this appeal. Reuben, J. 9 I agree.