JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This second appeal raises a question of construction of Section 10 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. 2. The Plaintiff's father Kamala Nath, advanced some money to the father of the Defendant in the year 1916 and as the amount remained unpaid he filed S.C.C. Suit No. 29 of 1923 against him And got A decree for Rs. 230/- That decree again remained unsatisfied though the Defendant-judgment-debtor had paid Rs. 41/- after the passing of the decree. 3. The decree purports to be a compromise decree and the interest stipulated is Rs. 18/12- per cent per annum. On 28-3-1925 the Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 230/- and executed a mortgage bend for Rs. 260/ - in favour of the Plaintiff's father. The present suit was laid for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 519 on the basis of the mortgage bond, after deducting a sum of Rs. 370/- and odd from the amount calculating with interest at Rs. 18/12 per cent per annum. The Defendant's plea was that he was not liable to pay more than doubts the amount originally advanced which, with interest, was decreed in the Small Cause Suit. 4. The trial court upheld the Defendant's plea and allowed a decree for Rs. 68/-. In its view, the Court was entitled to reopen the transaction go behind the decree, to ascertain what was the amount originally advanced by the Plaintiff. Against this judgment the Plaintiff appealed. His appeal was allowed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who was of the view that the Orissa Money-Lenders Act had no application to the facts of the case, and gave the Plaintiff a decree for Rs. 519. 5. It is against this judgment that the Defendant comes up in second appeal before us. 6. Section 10(1) of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act expressly lays down that in a suit for recovery of a loan advanced before or after the commencement of the Act the Court shall not pass a decree for an amount exceeding the amount of the loan originally advanced. According to the Appellant the amount originally advanced was Rs. 90/- for the recovery of which the Small Cause Suit was brought. According to the Respondent, the face value of the mortgage bond itself is the amount of the loan originally advanced. According to the Appellant the amount originally advanced was Rs. 90/- for the recovery of which the Small Cause Suit was brought. According to the Respondent, the face value of the mortgage bond itself is the amount of the loan originally advanced. It is contended that we cannot go behind the amount shown in the mortgage bond as loan. In our judgment, both sides have put forward extreme contentions. We are of opinion that having regard to the recitals in the mortgage bond no amount was actually advanced under the bond as it was executed for the discharge of the Small Cause Court decretal debt, together with interest. We have therefore to go behind the mortgage bond and see what the amount originally advanced was. It was contended that we cannot go behind the decree as it was passed in the year 1923. In applying Section 10, we have to take note of the Sub-clause (3) which says that in the case of a decree passed on or after the 1st April, 1936 the Court can apply the provisions of Section 10 if the decree remains unsatisfied. Admittedly, in this case the decree is of the year 1923 and is not hit by the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 10. Moreover that question would arise only in execution proceedings. We are therefore left with Section 10(1) Which is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. 7. We would therefore hold that the sum of Rs. 230/- embodied in the decree is the amount originally advanced, in respect of which the mortgage bond was execute. The Plaintiff is not entitled to recover more than double the amount shown in the decree, that is to say, more than Rs. 230/- Admittedly, the debtor has paid Rs. 230/- and this amount has to be deducted from the above sum of Rs. 360/ -. The Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a decree for the balance of Rs. 199/-. 8. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Mohapatra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed