JUDGMENT Bajpai, J.- l. The short point involved in this second appeal is about the possibility of reopening of settled accounts undisputedly pertaining to certain transaction of loan and its repayment along with interest. It was not disputed that interest had been charged at the rate of 2% per months as deposed by the plaintiff himself. After adjusting various repayments towards the amount of loan and interest due, a balance was struck and the defendant acknowledged the liability to pay the same. It was also not disputed that the plaintiff was a money lender and the transactions in question were in the course of his business of money leading. The Courts below decreed the claim of the plaintiffs for the amount which had been already acknowledged by the defendant. Interest after the date of acknowledgement was swallowed because the plaintiffs had undisputedly not complied with the requirements of furnishing statements of accounts, etc, as provided by the M. P. Money Lenders Act. The case of the defendant was that originally he bad taken a loan of Rs. 300/- only. He had paid a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- still the plaintiffs calculated the balance as outstanding at Rs. 1181/- A specific plea was raised that the interest charged was excessive and since the defendant had paid substantial amount not only towards the original loan but also towards interest, he was not liable to make any further payment. The basic defence in fact was of getting relief in respect of the excessive amount of interest included in the acknowledged figure shown as the balance after settlement of accounts. 2. The Courts below rejected the plea by relying on various decisions of this Court which lay down that once the accounts were settled the same was not liable to be reopened unless it was vitiated by fraued or misrepresentation. 3. Shri B. D, Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ratio of the decisions relied on by the Courts below was not applicable to the present case where there was a statutory obligation on the Courts below to see that the rate of interest claimed being undisputedly on its face excessive, was not decreed He relied on section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act and contended that the Courts below should have reopened the account. Since the initial transaction was within the period of 12 years from the date of acknowledgement obtained after settling the accounts there was no difficulty in applying the provisions of section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to find out the actual amount of interest included in the settled figure and to refuse that much which was found to be excessive in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. Shri M. M. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs however, contended that the defendant had not raised any specific plea with reference to the provisions of the said Act and had not specifically claimed reopening of accounts in the written statement. Thus the arguments on behalf of the respondents were that in the absence of there being any such plea, as is now for the first time being specifically urged by the defendants before this Court, the Courts below were right in not allowing such a request merely for the reason that the rate of interest charged was 24% per annum as stated by the plaintiff in his deposition before the trial Court. 5. In the opinion of this Court the decisions referred to in para 10 of the judgment impugned are not applicable to the present case. The observations made by the learned single Judge in the case of Mangilal v. Abdul Hamid, digested as Short Note No. 64 in 1967 MPLJ and fully reported in 1966 JLJ 1193, cannot be applied to the present case which is apparently distinguishable on facts. In para 4 of the decision in Mangilal's case (supra) it has been specifically observed that the transactions in the aforesaid case were not found to have contravened any statutory provision in respect of interest nor any such question was involved which would call for interference by this Court under section 3 of the said Act. There is no quarrel with the proposition that ordinarily there is no scope for opening a settled account unless it is found that the settlement was arrived at by misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud, etc. But where a statute makes a special provision and puts an obligation on the Court to see in a suit which is tried exparte, that the claim of excessive rate of interest is not enforced and decreed, the position becomes different. 6. But where a statute makes a special provision and puts an obligation on the Court to see in a suit which is tried exparte, that the claim of excessive rate of interest is not enforced and decreed, the position becomes different. 6. The provisions of section 3 of the Act, as reproduced below, required reopening of transactions where the Court has reason to believe that the interest was excessive. The only restriction put on the aforesaid power of the Court is that the Court shall not reopen any agreement purporting to close the previous dealings and to create a new obligation which has been entered into by the parties on a date more than 12 years from the date of the transaction. Sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Act, as amended by the M. P. Act, provides that where in a suit the Court finds that the rate of interest exceeds 18% per annum in the case of an unsecured loan, it shall until the contrary is proved presume that such rate is excessive The proviso (ii) appended to sub-section (2) of S 3 of the Act, further provides that even in a case where the interest charged is below the aforesaid rate, the Court may hold the same also to be excessive, in the special facts and circumstances of any particular case. "3 Re-opening of transaction-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1855 where in any suit to which this Act applies, whether heard exparte or otherwise, the Court has reason to believe, (a) (b) that the interest is excessive and, that the transaction was, as between the parties thereto substantially unfair, the Court may exercise all or any of the following powers namely may,- (i) re-open the transaction, take an account between the parties and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any excessive interest, (ii) notwithstanding any agreement, purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation reopen any account already taken between them and relieve the debtor to all liability in respect of any excessive interest, and if anything has been paid or allowed in account in respect of such liability, order the creditor to repay any which it considers to be repayable in respect thereof, (iii) set aside either wholly or impart or revise or alter any security given or agreement made in respect of any loan, and if the creditor has parted with the security order him to indemnify the debtor in such manner and to such extent as it may deem just: Provided that in the exercise of these powers the Court shall not- (i) re-open any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation which has been entered into by the parties or any person from whom they claim that a date more than twelve years from the date of transaction, (ii) do anything which effects any decree of a Court. Explanation:-In the case of a suit brought on a series of transaction the expression 'the transaction' means for the purposes of proviso (i) the first of such transactions. (2) (a) In this section 'excessive' means in excess of that which the Court deems to be reasonable having regard to the risk incurred as it appeared, or must be taken to have appeared to the creditor at the date of the loan. (2) (a) In this section 'excessive' means in excess of that which the Court deems to be reasonable having regard to the risk incurred as it appeared, or must be taken to have appeared to the creditor at the date of the loan. (i) provided that compound interest in excess of the percent, on any loan made after such date, as the local Government may, by notification, fix, shall be deemed to the excessive, (ii) Provided further that, where in any suit the Court finds that the rate of interest exceeds twelve percent per annum in the case of a secured loan or eighteen % per annum in the case of all unsecured loan or that there is a stipulation for rents at intervals of less than six months it shall until the contrary is proved presume that such rate is exce8$ive, but this provision shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court under sub section (1) where the Court is satisfied that the interest charged through out exceeding twelve percent per annum or eighteen percent per annum as the case may be is excessive" 7. In the present case it is not disputed that the agreement closing the previous dealing and acknowledging the balance is within 12 years from the date of the initial transaction. The rate of interest charged was 24% per annum, i. e. 2 per cent per month. Under these circumstances the applicability of the provisions of section 3 of the Act is fully attracted and, as such the Courts below erred in law in not re-opening of the accounts. From the perusal of the judgment impugned it appears that the Court below simply considered the provisions of section 9 and 10 of the Act which prohibits decreeing of a claim of interest greater than the principal amount of the loan. The case was not examined by the Courts below in the light of the provisions of section 3 of the Act. 8. There is no force in the objection that since no specifice plea for re-opening the accounts by referring to the provisions of the Act was taken the defendant was not entitled to get the relief of the accounts reopened. The purpose of the enactment is to give relief to the debtors and protect them from being charged excessive rate of interest. The purpose of the enactment is to give relief to the debtors and protect them from being charged excessive rate of interest. Keeping this in view, the language employed was that this power may be exercised even in suits which are not contested. Once there is material before the Court for being satisfied that interest charged was excessive there is no justification for refusing the prayer for re-opening of accounts merely on the grounds that the accounts were settled and that there was no allegation of fraud or undue influence. The provisions of the Act are in addition to the general provisions permitting the re-opening of accounts. 9. The judgments and decree of the Courts below are, therefore, set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of the result of re-opening of accounts. The plaintiffs' claim for interest uptu 18% per annum may be allowed. if otherwise permissible according to law i. e. compliance of the requirements of the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, etc. The actual amount if any, due may be ascertained afresh. 10. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there wilt be no order as to costs. The parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.