JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - These are two applications for permission to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council. The two cases involve exactly the same point of limitation. The lower Courts took the same view in both cases and were upheld by this Court. In each the valuation is admittedly above Rs. 10,000. Since this Court confirmed the decrees of the Courts below the appeals must involve some substantial question of law.' 2. The applicant's learned 'Counsel' cites three reasons why permission should be given, (1) The appeals will involve construction of a statute on which there is no binding authority, (2) The question involved goes to the very root of the cases and if the appellant succeeds, the entire decretal debts will be wiped-out, (3) The cases are both of very large valuation. Let us examine the question of limitation which is raised in view of the history of the case. 3. Two mortgages were executed by Rana Umanath Bux Singh, one in favour of Sheo Pd. now represented by Satendra Kumar and another and the other in favour of the Allahabad Bank, Ltd. On the 7th July. 1923, Sheo Prasad obtained a final decree for sale in respect of his mortgage. The last application for execution was made on the 23rd September, t(,33. While sale proceedings were taking place on the 29th July, 1935, the judgment-debtor applied for amendment of the decree under the Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act XXVII of 1934). This application was made after the period of limitation for making fresh applications for execution had expired. On the 19th October, 1936, the application was allowed and the decree was amended on the 6th January, 1937. 25 instalments were fixed. The decree was made executable on the failure of three instalments. The judgment-debtor did not pay any instalment and therefore on the 14th July, 1938, this application for execution was filed. The objection was taken that since 12 years had expired since the passing of the decree, no fresh application for execution could be made. This plea was repudiated by the executing Court and on appeal to this Court that decision was upheld. 4. The point of law is the interpretation of Section 5 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. It says, 5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. This plea was repudiated by the executing Court and on appeal to this Court that decision was upheld. 4. The point of law is the interpretation of Section 5 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. It says, 5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. 1908, the Court shall, unless for reasons to be recorded it directs otherwise at any time, 3n the application of the judgment-debtor and after notice to the decree-holder direct that any decree for money or preliminary decree for sale or foreclosure passed by it or by any Court whose business has been transferred to it, against an agriculturist, whether before or after this Act comes into force shall be converted into a decree for payment by instalments drawn up in such terms as it thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3. (2) If, on the application of the judgment- k debtor, the Court refuses to grant instalments or grants a number or period of instalments which the judgment-debtor considers inadequate, its order shall be appealable to the Court to which the Court passing the order is immediately sub- ordinate, and the decision of the appellate Court shall be final: Provided that any final decree for sale which has not been fully satisfied, passed before this Act comes into force, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the CPC 1908, be revisable in the same manner and to the same extent as the preliminary decree for sale or foreclosure passed against an agriculturist. 5. It is argued that because sub-Section (1) speaks of a decree for money or preliminary decree for sale or foreclosure being converted into a decree for payment by instalments, whereas the proviso speaks of a final decree for sale which has not been fully satisfied being revisable, therefore in the case of decrees for money and preliminary decrees for sale or foreclosure a new decree is substituted for the old but in the case of a final decree for sale which has not been fully satisfied the decree remains the same decree as revised. But the. argument loses sight of the fact that the final decree for sale is said to be revisable """ the same manner and to the same extent" as a decree for money etc. But the. argument loses sight of the fact that the final decree for sale is said to be revisable """ the same manner and to the same extent" as a decree for money etc. Therefore both kinds of decree are "revisable" but the revision amounts to the conversion of the old decree into a new one. Moreover Section 3 provides ''Notwithstanding any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, V of 1908, to the contrary...............(sub-Section 4) if the decree provides for payment by instalments, the Court shall direct that, where the number of instalments allowed is four or five and any two instalments are in arrears or where the number allowed is six or more and any three instalments are in arrears, the decree-holder may, notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, immediately enforce payment of the whole amount. then remaining due under the decree, and in the case of a decree for sale or foreclosure apply that a final decree shall be passed." Section 5(1) provides that the decree shall be drawn up in such terms as the Court thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3. 6. It has been argued before the Bench which heard the appeal that because the decree does not contain the words ''Notwithstanding any provision in the ode of Civil Procedure, V of 1908, to the contrary" therefore Section 48 of the CPC will apply. We, however, do j not think that it is necessary to incorporate this clause in the decree. The Agriculturists' Relief Act is enacting certain positive law, some of which is at variance with certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. To prevent clash it provides that the provisions of the CPC will give way before the special provisions of the Act. This provision is operative independently of its being incorporated in the decree. 7. The applicant's learned Counsel has appealed to us to consider the intention of the legislature. We consider, however, that the intention of the legislature is as clear as the grammatical meaning! of the words of the Act. It was the intention of the legislature to give agriculturists some relief from their debts but not to wipe them out altogether as would be the case if the appellant's argument had been accepted. . 8. We consider, however, that the intention of the legislature is as clear as the grammatical meaning! of the words of the Act. It was the intention of the legislature to give agriculturists some relief from their debts but not to wipe them out altogether as would be the case if the appellant's argument had been accepted. . 8. The dates and figures in the case of the decree of the Allahabad Bank are different but the legal position is exactly the same. We do not think it is necessary to retail, the dates and figures of that case. Ail the remarks made in the case of Satendra Kumar are mutatis mutandis applicable also to the case of the Bank. 9. We consider that there is no substantial question of law in the case because there was no substance in the argument of the appellant. 10. We therefore dismiss these application with costs.