JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Opposite parties are judgment debtors and Petitioner is the decree-holder. Opposite party No. 1, father of opposite party No. 2, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1500- on the strength of a mortgage deed agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 9 p.c., p. .. On 20th January, 1953, the judgment-debtor paid sum of Rs. 500-. Plaintiff filed T.S. No. 252 of 1955 for recovery of the balance dues. On 11 the February, 1958, a preliminary decree was passed for Rs. 2420- with costs of Rs. 461.97 P.. Pendente lite interest was reduced, but future interest was granted 6 p.c., p.a. under Order 34, Rule n, Code of Civil Procedure. As no payment was made in accordance with the directions given in the preliminary decree, it was made final on 6-8-1959. On 12th January, 1960, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 960 for realisation of Rs. 3226.97 P. comprising of Rs. 2881.97 P. as decretal dues and Rs. 332.00 as interest 6 p.c. p.a. from 11-2-1958 to 11-1-1960. From 26th January, 1962 to 15th October, 1962, the judgment-debtor paid Rs. 2500-in different instalments and an application was filed on 1-12-1962 u/s 10 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act alleging that as Rs. 3000- has been paid, no further amount was due under the decree and the execution case was liable to be dismissed. 2. The learned Munsif dismissed the application saying that Section 10 has no application. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application on the view that the scheme of the Orissa Money Lenders Act is to safeguard the debtors from being exploited by unscrupulous money-lenders, and the provisions of the Act must be construed liberally. 3 The view of the learned Subordinate Judge is misconceived in law. Section 10(1) is as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law or in any contract, no Court shall, in any suit whether brought by a money-lender or by any other person in respect of a loan advanced before or after too commencement of this Act, pass a decree for an amount of interest for the period preceding the institution of the suit which together with any amount already realised as interest through Court or otherwise, is greater than the amount of the loan originally advanced. The underlined expression makes it absolutely clear that the realisation of interest beyond an amount equal to that of the principal is prohibited only upto the date of the institution of the suit. Section 10 does not put an embargo on realisation of interest on the principal as directed in the decree and thus pendente lite and future interest can be realised and the amount to be realised would not be taken into consideration to apply the principle of dam dupat. Doubtless, the remedial statute must be liberally construed 80 as to advance the cause of justice, but a construction contrary to the express language of the statute is not permissible. The application u/s 10 is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the result, the Civil Revision succeeds, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif restored. There will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed