ORDER H.G. Mishra, J.—This is second appeal by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16-9-1968 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 17-11-1967 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff has been confirmed. 2. Facts material for decision of this appeal are as under: (a) that plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 759 found due when accounts settled on 6-11-73, interest to the extent of Rs. 124.50 Np. and notice expenses 66 P. in all thus a decree for Rs. 1084.16 P. was claimed by the plaintiff. (b) The defendant denied the factum of putting his signatures below the entry pertaining to the settled accounts and inter alia took a plea that the amount arrived at after settlement of the accounts included interest also; and, that besides other laws controlling the right to recover interest, the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (Act No. 10 of 1918) also applies to the transaction in suit. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to reopening of the accounts. The defendant also took the plea that in view of the provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover interest and costs of the suit on account of failure of the plaintiff to send the accounts. (c) The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the principal amount but declined to pass a decree in respect of interest claimed for the period prior to the institution of the suit. Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the defendant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence this second appeal. 3. In this second appeal Shri B.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, contended that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in law in holding that the Usurious Loans Act does not extend to the territories within the Madhya Bharat region of the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the trial Court should be directed to examine the question of applicability of the provisions of the said Act. Reliance was placed on a decision in Uttamsingh v. Sardarsingh Second Appeal No. 274/68 decided on 16-12-1978 by this Court. Reliance was placed on a decision in Uttamsingh v. Sardarsingh Second Appeal No. 274/68 decided on 16-12-1978 by this Court. Shri Swami Saran, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that the decision in Uttamsingh v. Sardarsingh's case (supra) there is no decision on the question of applicability of the Usurious Loans Act to the region of Madhya Bharat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the case deserves to be sent back to the trial Court for deciding the case afresh in accordance with law and the observations made hereinunder. 5. The learned Additional District Judge has in para 6 of the impugned judgment observed as under: It may be noted here that Usurious Loans Act 1918 (No. 10/1918) has not been extended to the part of Madhya Bharat and Sironj Regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh as is clear from the section A of Item 17 of the M.P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958. The Court, therefore, cannot examine the accounts for the past 12 years under this Act. In order to examine the correctness of this conclusion reached by the learned Additional District Judge it appears necessary to keep in view section 1(2) of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, which runs as under: 1. Short title and extent--(1) ...... ...... (2) It extends to the whole of India except the territories which immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States. Prior to the coming into force of the Extension of Laws, (M.P.) Act, 1958 (Act No. 23 of 1958), the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act did not apply to the territories which immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States. After formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State Legislature enacted the Extension of Laws Act, 1958 (Act No. 23 of 1958). Section 3(1) of Act No. 23 of 1958 provides that-- 3. Extension and amendment of certain Acts--(1) The Acts specified in Part A of the Schedule and as in force in the Mahakoshal region immediately before the appointed day, are hereby extended to, and shall, as from the appointed day, be enforce in all the other regions of the State. Section 3(1) of Act No. 23 of 1958 provides that-- 3. Extension and amendment of certain Acts--(1) The Acts specified in Part A of the Schedule and as in force in the Mahakoshal region immediately before the appointed day, are hereby extended to, and shall, as from the appointed day, be enforce in all the other regions of the State. Sub-section (3) of section 3 further provided-- The Acts extended by sub-sections (1) and (2) shall, in their application to the whole of Madhya Pradesh, be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the schedule. Now, as specified in Item 17 of the Part A of the Schedule referred to in subsection (1) of section 3, sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, is to be read amended as under: In sub-section (2) after words "Part B States" the words "other than the Madhya Bharat and Sironj regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Usurious Loan Act, 1918, as amended by the aforesaid Extension of Laws Act, reads as under: It extends to the whole of India except territories which, immediately before the "1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States other than the Madhya Bharat and Sironj regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh. As a consequence of the amendment of sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Act No. 10 of 1918 brought about by section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the Extension of Laws (M. P.) Act, 1958, the inapplicability of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, to the Madhya Bharat and Sironj regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh was taken away. In consequence whereof, the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 was extended and applied to the Madhya Bharat region of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The theory of double negatives making positive was thus applied by the framers of the law to the aforesaid provision. 6. A similar question cropped up before this Court in Laccho and another Vs. Keshavlal and another, in the context of the effect of the Extension of Laws Act, 1953, in its applicability to the region of Madhya Bharat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Shivdayal J. (as he then was) while deciding Laccho's case (supra) took a view similar to that I am taking in the present context. Keshavlal and another, in the context of the effect of the Extension of Laws Act, 1953, in its applicability to the region of Madhya Bharat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Shivdayal J. (as he then was) while deciding Laccho's case (supra) took a view similar to that I am taking in the present context. This is clear from paras 9 and 10 of Laccho's case (supra) which arc as follows: 9. Sub-section (3) of the Extention of Laws Act provides that the Acts extended by the sub-sections (1) and (2) of the section (section 3) in their application to the whole of Madhya Pradesh shall be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Schedule. 10. While applying the Suits Valuation Act to the whole of Madhya Pradesh State, section 1 of the Suits Valuation Act is to be read as follows: This Act may be called the Suits Valuations Act, 1887, and it extends to the whole of India except the States which on 1st November 1956 were comprised in Part B States other than the Madhya Bharat and Sironj regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In other words the Suits Valuation Act has been extended to the Madhya Bharat region, as well. Section 1 of the Suits Valuation Act has been amended in identical manner in its extension and applicability to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, the exposition of law made in the case of Lachho (supra) usefully can be applied while construing the provisions of section 1(2) of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, as extended and applied to the State of Madhya Pradesh by virtue of the amendment brought about by sub-section (3) of section 3 read with sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Extension of Laws Act, 1958. 7. In this view of the matter the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally when he held that the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, does not apply to the M. B. Region of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It did apply to the said region at the relevant time. 8. So far as reliance on the ratio of the judgment in Uttam Singh v. Sardarsingh, is concerned it is not applicable for the present purposes because the question which has been posed for decision by the present appeal was neither posed nor decided in that case. It did apply to the said region at the relevant time. 8. So far as reliance on the ratio of the judgment in Uttam Singh v. Sardarsingh, is concerned it is not applicable for the present purposes because the question which has been posed for decision by the present appeal was neither posed nor decided in that case. The case of Uttamsingh (supra) proceeds on the assumption that the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, applied to the Madhya Bharat Region of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, it cannot be treated as an authority for the question posed by this appeal. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the Courts below have failed to examine the question of applicability of the various provisions of Act No. 10 of 1918 to the suit transaction. This requires examination of various provisions of the Act to the instant case. It is found that the Act No. 10 of 1918 applies to the suit transaction. Thus the Courts below will have to reopen the transaction by taking an account between the parties and to find out the real interest. The question of applicability of other enactments enacted for controlling the right of money-lender to recover interest will have also to be examined. In this situation it appears necessary to send back the case to the trial Court for the purpose. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside, and the case is sent back to the trial Court with a direction that it will determine the question of applicability of the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, to the suit transaction and also the question of applicability of other enactments controlling the right of the plaintiff to recover the interest from the defendant, and, thereafter, proceed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 11. The court-fees paid by the defendant-appellant on the memorandum of appeal in this Court as well as in the Court of first appeal will be refunded in accordance with rules to the appellant. The other costs will have to be provided for by the trial Court and will follow the event. Counsel fee as per schedule, if certified.