JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This appeal arises out of an application for an order absolute for sale under section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree in the case was passed upon a compromise which provided that the amount of the decree should be paid by instalments of Rs. 150 each in the month of June of each year commencing from the year 1900. The compromise further provided that in the event of failure to pay the amounts of two consecutive instalments the decree-holder would be entitled to recover the whole of the balance due without waiting for future instalments. What happened in this case was this. The judgment-debtor did not pay the first instalment which was due in June 1900, but in 1901, 1902 and 1903 he paid into Court three instalments of Rs. 150 each. The decree-holder has given him credit for the first three instalments, and as the fourth and fifth instalments were thus due on the 5th of July, 1904, the date on which he made his application, he prayed that an order absolute be made in his favour for the balance due under the decree, the judgment-debtor not having complied with, the terms of the compromise. The judgment-debtor objected that as at the time of payment he had indicated that the payments were made on account of the second, third and fourth instalments, the amounts of two consecutive instalments were not due and that therefore the decree-holder was not entitled to make his application. This objection was repelled by the Court of first instance but found favour with the lower appellate Court which held that under section 59 of the Contract Act the payments made ought to have been appropriated to the particular instalments named by the judgment-debtor at the time of payment. That Court accordingly dismissed the application. The decree-holder appeals and contends that section 59 of the Contract Act has no application. I am of opinion that this contention must prevail. Section 59 deals with the case of several distinct debts which this case was not. Here there was only one debt, namely, the debt due on the decree. That single debt was payable on different dates and in different sums, so that section 59 has no application to a case of this kind. At the time when a sum of Rs. Here there was only one debt, namely, the debt due on the decree. That single debt was payable on different dates and in different sums, so that section 59 has no application to a case of this kind. At the time when a sum of Rs. 150 was paid by the judgment-debtor, two instalments of Rs. 150 each were due. Therefore the decree-holder was entitled to appropriate the amount to the earlier of the two instalments. In this way upon the three sums paid by the judgment-debtor being applied to the first three instalments, there was default in the payment of the fourth and the fifth instalments on the date of the application, and consequently the decree-holder was entitled to make an application for an order absolute for sale in accordance with the terms of the compromise and the decree. If the contention of the judgment-debtor were to be accepted he could very easily evade the operation of the last clause in the compromise by paying the amount of every other instalment, and all he had to do was to say that although a prior instalment was due he was making payment on account of a subsequent instalment. This certainly was not the intention of the parties when the compromise was entered into. The judgment-debtor ought not to be allowed to resort to a device for evading the terms of the decree. Further, it is admitted that the fifth and sixth instalments which are now overdue have not been paid, so that in any case the decree-holder is entitled to apply for an order absolute for sale for the purpose of realizing the balance of the amount due under the decree. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court, and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs.