JUDGMENT H.R. Krishnan, J. This application in revision involves a point of interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Madhya Bharat Money-lenders Act (No. 62 of 1950). The question is, whether the executing Court is bound to take evidence about whether the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist, so that it may, in that event, give him the benefit of the ceiling fixed in regard to interest in the latter part of the section. The facts are the following: The Applicant is the judgment-debtor in a mortgage-decree passed on consent with a provision for instalments, which were not kept up. The decree-holder beginning to levy execution, the Appellant-judgment-debtor urged that he was an agriculturist; therefore, the decree-holder would be deemed to be a money-lender in respect of this decree and accordingly, the total interest payment should be limited to the ceiling in Section 15(2) of the Act. It appears that the executing Court ordered at one stage that the judgment-debtor might adduce evidence about his being an agriculturist as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. Subsequently, possibly, after a new presiding officer had come, the executing Court refused to go into the matter because "the Money lenders Act had no application to this particular loan". This, the Court might have held on one of the two reasons--(i) that the Act itself expressly excluded mortgage loans; and (ii) that whether or not the Applicant was an agriculturist, a Court executing a decree, unlike an appellate Court, cannot apply Section 15(1) or (2) in respect of a decree which like the present one, had been passed before the commencement of the Act. If it had been the first ground, the executing Court is obviously mistaken because the original provision in Section 2(6)(d) excluding a mortgage loan was deleted by an amendment that came into force on the 19th October 1955. That, of course, would not entitle the judgment-debtor to a declaration that he is an agriculturist, but an opportunity should be given to show by evidence that he is. If it is the second ground, we should see whether, either Sub-section enables the debtor to show that he is an agriculturist. That, of course, would not entitle the judgment-debtor to a declaration that he is an agriculturist, but an opportunity should be given to show by evidence that he is. If it is the second ground, we should see whether, either Sub-section enables the debtor to show that he is an agriculturist. As for Section 15(1), the question is, what is meant by "granted by a Court in respect of loans made before the Act came into force." In this regard, the provision in some Acts whether of Madhya Bharat or elsewhere, are found differently worded. In some enactments like the Madhya Bharat Interest Act, the phrase is "adjudicated by a Court". It would be legitimate to assume that the Act can be invoked even retrospectively by appellate Courts as well as trial Courts but not by Courts executing a decree because "executing" decree is not "adjudicating". In some enactments the words are "nobody shall be allowed to realize". In that event even the executing Court can apply the provisions. In the present section the phrase is "granted by a Court". The executing Court, properly speaking, does not grant anything. It only collects by a coercive process what the decree-holder-grantee has already been granted by the adjudicating Court whether on original trial or on appeal. Thus, the executing Court, like the present one, cannot apply Section 15(1) and it would be useless for it to investigate whether or not the Applicant-judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. Shri Sanghi, counsel for the Applicant has really taken his stand on second part of Sub-section (2) of Section 15. Sub-section (2) begins by mentioning future interest which should not exceed 6 p. e. p. a. and continues-- But during the execution of a decree whether passed before or after the passing of the Act, the recovery on account of the arrears of interest shall not exceed when added to the interest already paid, either before or after the passing of the decree, the amount of the principal. There is a proviso regarding the costs but we are not concerned with it here. This would mean that total interest realized in a decree may not exceed the amount of the principal. There is a proviso regarding the costs but we are not concerned with it here. This would mean that total interest realized in a decree may not exceed the amount of the principal. This total interest will include three elements (i) interest already paid before passing of the decree; (ii) interest awarded in the decree whether or not it is paid before the execution is levied; and (iii) future interest. As this Sub-section plainly means that all the three elements put together should not exceed the amount of the principal, it is clear that even without including the future interest, the total interest should not exceed the amount of the principal. In other words, apart from the future interest, the interest granted in the decree plus the interest paid before the decree should not exceed the amount of the principal. An illustration can make this clear. Firstly, there is a case where on a principal of Rs.1,000 the party has already paid as interest before the decree Rs.100 and the decree awards Rs.800 and the future interest calculated becomes Rs.200 on the basis of 6 p.c. p.a. Now, the total is Rs.2,100; but the party can be allowed to realize only Rs.2,000. This is simple. Another case is conceivable where the interest paid before the decree is Rs.100, the interest awarded in the decree is Rs.950 and the future interest is Rs.200. In a case like this, even apart from the future interest, Section 15(2) would call upon the executing Court to step down the interest to a total of Rs.1,000, in other words, reducing the interest already awarded in the decree itself. Looked at this way, in spite of the possible difference of interpretation of the word "grant" in Section 15(1), the executing Court would be called upon under Section 15(2) to see if the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. The result is that the application is allowed and the executing Court is directed to afford opportunity to the judgment-debtor to show by evidence that he is an agriculturist. Costs and pleader's fee to abide final result. Application allowed