Judgement G. N. DAS, J. :- This application in revision is at the instance of certain mortgagees. The mortgage loan was taken on 13th August 1332. The mortgagees instituted ft suit foe recovery of the sum due on the mortgage treating to be claim as one for recovery of money and not as a claim foe enforcement of the security. The suit was, therefore, not framed in terms of O. 34, Civil P.C. The decree was put into execution when the judgment-debtors made an application under S. 34(1)(b) and S. 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The decree-holders raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application. One of the objections with which we are now concerned related to the prayer of the judgment-debtors for instalments under S. 34(1)(b), Bengal Money-leaders Act. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge has refused to re-open the decree under S. 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act on the ground that the decree does not contravene the provisions of S. 30 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has however made a preliminary order is favour of the judgment-debtors under S. 34(1)(b)(ii), Bengal Money-lenders Act. 3. In the rule Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioners contends that S. 34(1)(b), Bengal Money-lenders Act, has no application as the loan was one on mortgage and as such was one to which the provisions of O. 34, Civil P.C., would apply and the remedy of the judgment-debtors was to make an application under S. 31(1)(a) for instalments at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree. The question, therefore, is whether S. 31(1)(a) is attracted to the facts of this case. The material portion of S. 34(1)(a) states : "Not withstanding anything contained is any law for the time being in force, or in any agreement, the Court shall (a) in suits is respect of loans to which the provisions of O. 34. Sch, 1, Civil P.C. 1908, apply, on the application of the defendant, and after hearing the plaintiff ........ at the time of the parsing of the preliminary decree under R. 2 or R. 4 of the said Order give certain directions for passing a, decree directing this amount of the decree to be payable in instalments as specified therein." The question is whether the words "to which the provisions of O. 34, Sch. 1, Civil P.C. 1908, apply" qualify the word loan or suit. 1, Civil P.C. 1908, apply" qualify the word loan or suit. Literally this expression may be said to qualify the word loan but having regard to the fact that the application has to be made at the time of the pacing of the preliminary decree under R. 2 or R. 4 such an interpretation would make R. 34(1)(a) inapplicable to the suits for recovery of loan due on mortgages, where the mortgagee does not proceed to enforce his security under O. 34, Section 31(1)(b) would on the petitioners interpretation entitle the borrower in case of only unsecured loans contracted before the passing of the Act to get instalments where the lender sues merely for recovery of the loan. The interpretation suggested above would thus result in an anomaly, and leave the mortgagors at the mercy of the mortgagees. 4. In my opinion a fair construction of S. 34(1)(a) is to hold that the expression "to which the provisions of O. 34, Sch. 1, Civil P.C., 1908, apply" qualifies suits. This is in consonance with the facts that order 34 refers to procedure in mortgage suit. When the Legislature used the expression "to which the provisions of O. 31, Sch. 1, Civil P.C. 1908, apply" they were contemplating suits and not loan. This interpretation would enable the debtor to have relief by way of instalments in all cases of mortgage loan irrespective of the question whether the mortgagee is seeking to enforce his security or not. The Bengal Money-lenders Act was intended to give relief to debtors. A liberal construction of S. 34 should, therefore, be put upon the expression referred to above. 5. The conclusion, therefore, follows that although the loan is on a mortgage and the mortgagee does not enforce his security but sues for recovery of loan in the ordinary way and not fey resort to the provisions of O. 31 the borrower may claim relief under S. 34(1)(b)(i) where the claim his not been decreed or (ii) where the claim has been decreed provided the loan was a pre Act loan. The present case, therefore, recovered by S. 34(i)(b)(ii) of the Act. 6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must, therefore, be overruled. 7. The Rule is accordingly discharged but there will be no order as to costs. 8. K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.:- I agree. Rule discharged.