Short Note : 1. The respondent who is a decree holder had obtained a decree in a suit against the appellants who are judgment-debtors. In the executing Court the judgment-debtors had filed an application mentioning as one under Order 20, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact that application should have been one under section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Money-Lenders Act, 1934. The executing Court declined to treat that application as one under section 11 of the Act and held that, application was time barred, There after, it also entered into the merit of the application and refused to grant installments. In the opinion of this Court, the executing Court did not act correctly in the matter. A wrong mention of the section or an order was not to be taken as one final under Which an application is made. In fact the purport of the application ought to have been considered, which in the instant case was for grant of installments. Such an application certainly lies under section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the application ought to have been treated as one under that Act. That being so the application Was wrongly held to be time barred.