Judgment :- 1. The debtor-respondent in a petition under S.S, 6 and 8 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958, has preferred this appeal from the order of the court below, dated 12th March 1962, fixing the amount of the debt. 2. The appellant had borrowed money from the respondent - a banking company - under an overdraft agreement (Ex. P-3) dated 23rd April 1953 with a limit of Rs. 10,000. Interest at 9 per cent per annum with quarterly rests was agreed to be paid by the debtor. Ex. P-3 was executed in renewal of an earlier agreement dated 29th May 1947. According to the bank, the debtor had acknowledged the balance due on 2nd July 1958 as Rs. 10,192.52 p. and he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,178.19 p. inclusive of interest on the date of the petition, i. e., 27th June 1961. Each instalment payable was stated to be Rs. 1,272.27 p. The debtor contended that interest was to be calculated on each item of debt and not on the consolidated balance and that Rs. 6,858 alone was the principal, all entries after 30th June 1949 being interest. He further contended that a sum of Rs. 1,600 had been paid after 14th July 1958, the date on which Act 31 of 1958 came into force. He filed supplementary objection on 6th November 1961 stating that the amounts under certain cheques which he had handed over to the bank for collection had on dishonour been debited against him without a corresponding credit entry when the cheques were accepted for collection and that these sums also should be deducted from the amount claimed. The court below rejected all the objections and allowed the petition of the bank. 3. The first point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the question raised in the supplementary objections should have been investigated. As stated earlier, the supplementary objections were filed on 6th November 1961 with an application No. 7853 of 1961 to permit him to raise the same. This application was allowed only on 12th March 1962, the date on which the court below decided the main petition. The main petition had been posted for evidence to 5th February 1962. As stated earlier, the supplementary objections were filed on 6th November 1961 with an application No. 7853 of 1961 to permit him to raise the same. This application was allowed only on 12th March 1962, the date on which the court below decided the main petition. The main petition had been posted for evidence to 5th February 1962. The court had no time to take up the case that day, but it was posted for hearing to 22nd February 1962 on which date it was heard without even examining the parties. The court below has, no doubt, stated that the supplementary objections were vague. The truth of the allegations could have been ascertained by looking at the copy of the accounts filed by the bank. This was not done and the disposal of the petition cannot, in the circumstances, be considered satisfactory. 4. The second point is that interest should have been calculated on sums debited from the respective dates and not on a consolidated amount. This argument cannot be accepted. It was held by a Division Bench in Oomman v. Kottayam Orient Bank Limited 1963 KLT.1150 that in a case of borrowing on an overdraft agreement, the debtor is not entitled to contend that each item borrowed was to be treated as a separate debt. We are in agreement with this view. This point must therefore be overruled. 5. The third and the most important point is that notwithstanding the contract, interest should be calculated only on the principal, i.e., the amount borrowed and not on an amount made up of such principal and interest. The court below disposed of this question on the short ground that the confirmation forms signed by the debtor were conclusive and that "he has also not gone into the box to swear that these confirmation slips do not estop him from disputing the correctness of the amounts in these proceedings". We have already pointed out that the court did not give an opportunity to the debtor to adduce evidence or to examine himself. The question as to what the principal for the purpose of computation of interest is, will depend on the applicability of Act 31 of 1958 to the debt. 6. We have already pointed out that the court did not give an opportunity to the debtor to adduce evidence or to examine himself. The question as to what the principal for the purpose of computation of interest is, will depend on the applicability of Act 31 of 1958 to the debt. 6. "Debt" has been defined in S.2 (c) as "any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of this Act, whether payable under a contract or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, and includes any debt or balance of debt due at the commencement of this Act under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955, or the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956...." This is followed by several exceptions of which the 11th alone is material here. The 11th exception is: "Any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949: Provided that in the case of any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, any agriculturist debtor shall be entitled to repay such debt in eight equal half-yearly instalments as provided in subsection (3) of S.4, but the provisions of S.5 shall not apply to such debt." The proviso to S.2 (c) (xi) in the original Act allowed the debtor to discharge such debts in seventeen instalments as provided in S.4 (2) but this was substituted by the present proviso, by Act II of 1961; and the effect of the change is that the debtor gets only eight instalments to pay the debt as provided in S.4 (3) of the Act. We may mention that S.4 was also substituted by a new section containing clauses (3), (4) and (5) which were not in the original Act. 7. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that S.4 (2) applies to debts due to banking companies where the sum exceeds Rs. We may mention that S.4 was also substituted by a new section containing clauses (3), (4) and (5) which were not in the original Act. 7. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that S.4 (2) applies to debts due to banking companies where the sum exceeds Rs. 1,500 or not and that the only section which is excluded by the definition is S.S. The argument is that this is an express provision in the Act applicable to debts due to banking companies. S.4 (2) reads: "(2) If any debt is repaid in seventeen equal half-yearly instalments together with interest at the rate specified in sub-section (1) of S.5 on the principal debt outstanding at the time of each payment, the whole debt shall be deemed to be discharged: Provided that in the case of debts due to a banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949 the number of instalments in which the debt shall be repaid shall be twelve where the debt does not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees and eight where it exceeds one thousand and five hundred rupees". The proviso makes it clear that it is applicable to debts due to banking companies. Unlike S.S, this section is not excluded when defining debts in S.2. The interest provided in clause (2) is interest on the principal which has been defined in S.2 (h) in these terms: "'principal' means the amount originally advanced together with such sum, if any, as has been subsequently advanced, notwithstanding any stipulation to treat any interest as principal and notwithstanding that the debt has been renewed or included in a fresh document whether by the same debtor or by his heirs, legal representatives, or assigns or by any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest and whether in favour of the same creditor or his heirs, legal representatives or assigns or of any other person acting on his behalf or in his interest." We have held in State Bank of Travancore v. S. Musaliyar 1964 KLT. 796 that the word 'principal' has to be given the same meaning as in the definition which means that it should include only the amount originally advanced, notwithstanding a stipulation to treat interest as principal. 796 that the word 'principal' has to be given the same meaning as in the definition which means that it should include only the amount originally advanced, notwithstanding a stipulation to treat interest as principal. We are therefore unable to accept the argument of the respondent that S.4(2) has not been made applicable to such debts by the definition in S.2(c)(xi). 8. It is not disputed that the sum treated as principal in the petition is one made up of accumulated interest also. This has to be re-opened in the light of what we have stated above and a fresh calculation made. It follows that the Order of the court below has to be set aside and the petition remanded for fresh decision. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order and remand the petition for fresh enquiry and decision according to law and in the light of what we have stated above. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Allowed.