Sinha, J.This, is a decree-holders appeal from a decision of the learned subordinate Judge of Shahabad in execution proceedings allowing the judgment debtors objection that the properties sought to be proceeded against should be valued under the provisions of Section 18 of Bihar Money. Leaders Act, and only a sufficient portion there of be sold in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of that Act.

2. It appears that the decree-holder appellant obtained a decree for a large sum of money in the Calcutta High Court on its original side. The decree recited that the suit was "to recover Rs. 33,918-11-6 due for the price of goods sold and delivered with interest." That decree was transferred to the Shahabad Court for execution, at the instance of the decree-holder appellant. In the Shahabad Court the judgment-debtors, who appear to have been a family firm carrying on business in cloth, etc., made an application under Sections 18 and 14 of the Bihar Money-Lendera Act, alleging that "the claim of the decree-holder was based upon dues for balance of the value of goods purchased and despatched by the decree-holder as commission agent to the judgment-debtors including his commission, adhatdari, etc., and interest and costs." Then the objectors proceeded to give details of the arrangement between the parties whereby the agent (the decree-holder) had supplied goods on certain terms, the judgment-debtors agreeing to pay interest at 9, per cent, per annum on the outstanding amounts on an account being taken every year of the trans actions between the parties. Those allegations were supported by an affidavit sworn to by one of the judgment debtors in paragraph 4 of which it is stated that the decree holder is a registered money-lender under the Bihar Money-lenders Act (Act vii of 1959). To their application aforesaid the judgment-debtors annexed a copy of the plaint in Suit No. 1519 of 1934 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court, which resulted in the decree under execution. It would appear from the plaint that the plaintiff decree-holder was commission agent for the purchase of various kinds of piece-goods as required from time to time by the defendants to be des-patched to their two shops in the district of Shahabad. The terms on which this arrangement had been arrived at are also recited in detail. We are not concerned with those details, but one thing is clear that the nature of the transaction between the parties was that the plaintiff in his capacity as commission agent had agreed to purchase on behalf of the defendants firm, piece-goods and he advanced money for those purchases on interest at 9 per cent, per annum.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge examined the nature of the transaction in detail, and came to the conclusion that the Bihar Money-Lenders Act applied to the transaction and that therefore, Sections 13 and 14, Bihar Money-Lenders Act would operate in respect of the decree under execution. In that view of the matter, he allowed the application and directed that the properties be valued as prayed for by the judgment-debtors. Hence this appeal by the decree holder.

4. Mr. Mahabir prasad on behalf of the appellant contended, in the first instance, that the decree having been passed by the Calcultta High Court on its original side must be executed by the Shahabad Court only in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act (X of 1940), and not in accordance with the Bihar Money-Lenders Act which, according to him, could not apply for two reasons, firstly, that the decree being of the Bengal Court could be executed in accordance with the law of that province and secondly, because it was not a loan within the meaning of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act which resulted in the decree of the Calcutta High Court.

5. If we hold that the first contention-raised on behalf of the appellant is well founded in law we need not go {into the second question whether the transaction is a substance was a loan within the meaning of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. Hence the first question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Shahabad Court in executing the decree is to execute it in accordance with the provisions of the law as it is prevails in Bengal. u/s 40, Civil P.G. which was added for the first time to the Code by the Act of 1908, the decree has to be executed in such manner as may be prescribed by the "rules" in force in Bihar. Now, what is the significance of the "rules" referred to in that section In my opinion, it must have reference to the rules framed under the CPC by the different High Courts in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by the Code itself; "Rules" in that section, in my opinion, have not the larger significance of rules of law inclusive both of adjectival as also substantive law. It may also be contended that Section 42, Civil P.C. confers upon the transferee Court, that is the Shahabad Court in this case, the same powers in executing the decree as if it bad been passed by itself. But the "powers" referred to in this section refer to the powers of the executing Court in relation to the procedure to be followed, and not in relation to the substantive law to be administered in executing the decree.

6. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in N.V. Ranganandham and Others Vs. M. Ponnacharamma, in which the Division Bench laid it down that Section 42, Civil. P.C. deals with the manner of execution and leaves the matter of limitation to be governed by the Limitation Act, and that the period of limitation applicable to the execution of the decree depended upon the character of the Court which, passed the decree, and not on that of the Court executing it on transfer. In this connection reliance was placed upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tincowrie Dawn v. Debendra Nath (90) 17 Cal. 491. To the same effect is the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Krishna Dass v. Alumbi Ammal (13) 36 Mad. 108 . Hence it may be said that the preponderance of judicial authority appears to be in favour of view that the transferee Court in executing the decree transferred to it for execution has to do so in accordance with the law of procedure obtaining in that Court, but has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in accordance with the substantive law obtaining in the Court which passed the decree, that is to say, the transferor court. That being so, it must be held that the Bengal Act X of 1940, which regulates the transactions of money-lending in Bengal, must be referred to in order to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties before us. In that Act a "commercial loan" has been excepted from the definition of a loan as contained in Clause (12) of Section 2 of the Act, and Clause (4) of that section defines a "commercial loan" in these terms:

commercial loan means a loan advanced to any person to be used by such person solely for the purpose of any business or concern relating to trade, commerce, industry, mining, planting insurance, transport, banking or entertainment, or to the occupation of what finger, warehouse, man or contractor or any other, venture of a mercantile nature whether as proprietor or principal or agent or guarantor." It will appear from the definition quoted above that transaction leading up to the decree under execution in the present case was entirely a commercial loan and, therefore, excepted from the operation of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. In that view of the matter, it must further be held that in accordance with the provisions of that Act the transaction which led up to the. decree of the Calcutta High court was not a loan so as to attract the operation of the other provisions of the Act.

7. In that view of the matter it is not necessary, in my opinion, to determine the further question raised by Mr. Mahabir Prasad whether the transaction could come within the purview of the definition of a loan as contained in the Bihar Money-lenders Act.

8. As a result of these considerations it must be held that the decision appealed against is erroneous in law, and that the judgment-debtors had no locus standi to make the application under Sections 13 and 14, Bihar Money Lenders Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs here and in the Court below and the application in the Court below stands rejected.

Meredith, J.

9. I agree. In my opinion, it s quite impossible to regard Sections 18 and 14, Bihar Money-Lenders Act, taken together as merely prescribing rules of procedure for execution. On, the contrary, a substantive right is enacted by those provisions for the protection of the judgment-debtor. It is a matter of the substantive rights of the parties, that is of substantive law. As such the current of authority seems to be that in such matters the law of the province where the decree was passed will be applicable, and not the law of the province in which it has decree is being executed. Section 40, in my opinion, refers only to procedure in execution, and can have no relation to the substantive rights of the parties under enactments such as the Money-lenders Acts, which are framed to afford protection to debtors.