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