ORDER V.R. Nevaskar, J. The only question involved in this revision petition is, whether Court has jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act to award installments in respect of a decree debt dated 10-7-1935. A decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 41 of 1935 on the basis of an award on 10-7-1935 for Rs. 11,600. As per terms of the decree the amount was liable to be paid at Rs. 400 per annum from Sam vat Year 1993 to 2019. Part of the amount payable under the decree remained unpaid and on 30th September 1954 an application was submitted on behalf of the judgment-debtors under Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act for award of installments. It was alleged in the petition that out of the total amount of Rs. 11,600 the Petitioners had paid Rs. 6,800 and the only amount that remained to be paid was Rs. 4,800. The Petitioners stated that as a result of the payment actually made they are reduced to poverty and that they are no longer in a position to repay the remaining amount at the rate indicated in the decree. They therefore prayed for grant of installment of Rs. 100 per annum. The decree-holder-opponents resisted the petition. It was contended on their behalf that the petition was not maintainable. The trial Court accepted the contention of the decree-holders and rejected the judgment debtors' petition. The present revision petition is directed against that order. Shri C.L. Sharma who appears for the Petitioners, contended that the order of the Court below is illegal inasmuch as it has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by refusing to consider the question of granting installments under Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act. In my opinion the contention is untenable in view of the specific provisions contained in the Act. Section 17 of the Act is as follows: 17. The Court may, at any time on the application of a judgment-debtor after hearing the decree-holder's objections, if any, direct that the amount of any decree passed against him, before this Act comes into force, in respect of a loan shall be paid in such number of installments and subject to such conditions on the dates fixed by it as having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of the decree, it considers fit. It is clear from the wording of this section that a discretion is granted to the Court to award installments on the application of a judgment-debtor only in respect of a loan. The term 'loan' is defined in Section 2, Clause (6) of the Act. According to this definition 'loan' means an advance, whether of money or in kind, at interest and shall include any transaction, which the Court finds to be in substance a loan, and also includes a pawn. To this definition there are certain exceptions which are not material for the present purpose. Having regard to this definition in the absence of anything else the present loan will be covered by the definition of the term 'loan'. But there is a specific section which lays down to what loan the Act shall apply. This is Section 14 which runs as follows: 14. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any loan made before this Act comes into force except such loans as were advanced after the Moneylenders Act, Gwalior State, Samvat 2003, the Indore Moneylenders Act No. v. of 1938, or the Sahukar Sambandhi Vidhan, Dewas Junior, 1943 or any similar enactment of any other Covenanting States came into force in the Covenanting States of Gwalior, Indore or Dewas Junior or such other Covenanting States respectively. It will be clear by reference to this saving contained in the Act that the Act or any provisions thereof is not to apply to any loan except to such loans as were advanced after the Indore Moneylenders Act No. v. of 1938 came into force in that State. It is clear from the facts stated above that the present loan was anterior to the coming into force of the Indore Act. It therefore follows that to this loan the present Act cannot apply and hence Section 17 of the Act. The present petition which is based on Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act is therefore clearly untenable. Shri C.L. Sharma tried to contend that the new Act should not be read to affect the vested right and referred to R.L. Reddy v. Provincial Government C.P. & Berar (1) in this connection. It is clear by reference to Section 14 of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act that the principle referred to in the above case has no application to the present case. It is clear by reference to Section 14 of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act that the principle referred to in the above case has no application to the present case. The provisions of Section 14 are clear and no question of vested right arises. Section 14 in clear and unambiguous terries says that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any loan made before this Act came into force, except to such loans as were advanced after the Indore Moneylenders Act came into force. The present loan does not fall under that exception. The petition being clear and precise no question of vested rights arises. It is also clear that the present petition is not made under Section 10 of the Indore Moneylenders Act. But even if such an application were made, I am clear in my mind that the application would be untenable. The revision petition therefore has no force and it is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.