Sections 7-C and 7-D of the Orissa Money-lenders Act apply to instances where the assistance of the court is not sought for, while Section 10 applies to suits in court.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against the reversing appellate decision of our learned brother Acharya, J. and arises out of an execution proceeding.

( 2 ) THE decree-holder-appellant filed Money Suit No. 3 of 1963 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,080. 56 out of which Rs. 29,164. 52 was the principal and the balance of Rs. 17,916. 04 was interest up to the date of the suit. On 22-9-1965, the suit was decreed for the entire amount claimed together with pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. Costs of Rs. 5,325. 62 were decreed and the judgment-debtor was allowed to satisfy the decree in monthly instalments of Rs. 1000/ -. The decree was executed in E. P. No. 22 of 1970. The judgment-debtor filed an application that the decree had been satisfied inasmuch as he had already paid Rs. 60,300/- by 16-9-1974. This stand was obviously taken by invoking the Damdupat Rule provided in Section 10 of the orissa Money-lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). On 3-1-1975, the executing court held that the judgment-debtor was liable to pay Rs. 47,080. 56 together with pendente lite and future interest on the principal amount of Rs. 29,164. 52 and the rule relied upon by the judgment-debtor was not applicable in respect of interest subsequent to institution of the suit. The judgment-debtor appealed and maintained that in view of the amended provisions of the Act, the creditor was not entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal amount and as the judgment-debtor had already paid more than double of the principal amount, his liability under the decree stood liquidated.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge relying on the provisions of Section 7-C and Section 7-D of the Act accepted this contention and has vacated the decision of the executing court. The decree-holder is in appeal.

( 4 ) CHAPTER II-A was introduced into the Act by the Amending Act 54 of 1975. Sections 7-C and 7-D which are relevant for the present purpose provide :--

"7-C. Maximum amount recoverable on loans.-- No money-lender shall recover towards the interest in respect of any loan advanced by him, an amount in excess of the amount of the principal. 7-D. Discharge of loan on payment of double the amount of the principal.--Any loan in respect of which the money-lender has realised from the debtor an amount equal to, or more than, twice the amount of the principal, shall stand discharged and the amount, if any, so realised in excess of twice the amount of the loan shall be refunded by the money-lender to the debtor. "

Counsel for the decree-holder does not dispute that in terms of Section 7-D, a suit would lie at the instance of the judgment-debtor for recovery of the excess realisation above twice the amount of the loan. He does not also dispute that even if the recovery has been prior to the amendment, a suit would still lie subject to limitation for recovery of the excess. Therefore, Section 7-D would apply to recoveries by the creditor prior to the amending Act. Undoubtedly Sections 7-C and 7-D are parts of the same legislative scheme and have to be read together. Section 7-C makes provision for the maximum amount that can be recovered on loans and gives a mandate that no moneylender can recover towards interest an amount in excess of the principal. According to Mr. Rao for the appellant, Section 10 embodies the Damdupat Rule which provides that interest for the period preceding the institution of the suit cannot exceed the amount of loan originally advanced. Therefore, the scheme in Section 10 is different from Section 7-C. Section 7-C and Section 10 are parts of the same Act and since they co-exist, a harmonious construction is to be adpoted. The decree-holder's counsel, therefore, contends that Section 10 must be confined to instances where the assistance of the court is sought for and application of Sections 7-C and 7-D must be limited to cases where the money-lender does not sue the debtor but seeks to rec