JUDGMENT Thomas, C.J. and Misra, J. - This is an execution of decree appeal by the judgment-debtor. 2. The Respondent Mohammad Ilias is a transferee a simple money decree from the original decree-holder Haji Mohammad Ali in whose favour it was passed on 14th October, 1931. While it was under execution, the judgment-debtor applied for the benefits of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act in 1935. The decree was converted on 2nd November, 1935 into a decree for payment by four six monthly instalments, in default of two of which it was ordered that the entire decretal amount would become at once payable. Meanwhile the attachment in execution was allowed to continue. The judgment-debtor did not pay any instalment with the result that on failure of the payment of the second instalment which became due on 2nd November, 1936, the decree-holder became entitled to proceed in execution. On 1st December, 1942, Mohammad Ilias applied for revival of the execution which was pending at the time of the order under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 3. Shamshad Mehdi, judgment-debtor, objected on the ground that by an order, dated 27th April, 1936, the previous execution had been consigned to records and fresh execution was barred by time. The executing Court was of the opinion that the previous execution application had not been finally disposed of but was only in a state of suspended animation, and that in any event the decree-holder was entitled to the benefits of Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act. It, therefore, ordered the revival of execution. The order was upheld by the learned Districe Judge in appeal. 4. The sole contention raised on behalf of the Appellant in this Court: is that the decree of 1931 having ceased to exist by reason of its conversion into an instalment decree u/s 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act the earlier proceedings in execution of that decree automatically came to an end for ever. If the original decree had subsisted, revival of the proceedings could be possible, but it is urged that there could be no revival of execution of a non-existent decree. If the original decree had subsisted, revival of the proceedings could be possible, but it is urged that there could be no revival of execution of a non-existent decree. The argument is based upon a remark occurring in Zamin Ali v. Parshotam Chandra 1938 A.W.R (HC) 407 to the effect that the original decree no longer exists after its conversion u/s 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, since it is superseded and a fresh decree with fresh terms is passed by a competent Court which alone is capable of execution. The above remark must be read in the light of the facts involved in that case. There a final decree was passed in a mortgage suit. The mortgaged property was put up for sale and was bought by an auction purchaser. Before confirmation of the sale the judgment-debtor Applied for and obtained a conversion of the mortgage decree into one for instalments u/s 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Subsequently the Court of first instance set aside the sale, but the decision was reversed on appeal on the ground that under Order 21, Rule 92, Code of Civil Procedure. a sale could only be set aside in the circumstances referred to in Rules 89, 90. and 91. The Court of first appeal, therefore, confirmed the sale in execution of the decree which had already been converted under the provisions of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is clear that the whole object underlying the provisions of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act would have been defeated, if, in spite of the converted decree, the sale of the property were to be confirmed. The question before us is entirely different. The order for payment by instalments has exhausted itself. The decree is ripe again for execution. The only difference that now remains between the original decree and the one passed by the Court under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act is one of amount. This can be altered by amendment so as to bring it into conformity with the amended decree. It is difficult to divorce the fresh decree altogether from the earlier one on which it is based and whose date it still bears. The attachment having been continued by an express order of the Court and the direction for payment by instalments having terminated there is no obstacle now in the way of revival of the earlier execution proceedings. It is difficult to divorce the fresh decree altogether from the earlier one on which it is based and whose date it still bears. The attachment having been continued by an express order of the Court and the direction for payment by instalments having terminated there is no obstacle now in the way of revival of the earlier execution proceedings. The view is directly supported by the decision in Ganesh Singh v. Ram Sarup 1937 O.W.N 906. A simple money decree was there sought to be converted into an instalment decree under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act just before the expiry of the 12 years' period prescribed by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended on behalf of the decree-holder that the Court should not act in pursuance of Section 5, because a fresh application for execution in the event of default of payment of instalments would not be permissible. The argument was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as follows There are, we think, two answers to this objection. One is that in the event of default in the payment of the instalments the execution application of the 3rd January, 1936, could be regarded as revived. The other is that according to the provisions of the fourth sub-clause of Section 3 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act which has to be read along with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, on the occurrence of default in the payment of instalments, a 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. 5. Ganesh Singh's case is, in our judgment, a clear authority for the conclusion reached by the Courts below. The view was recently re-affirmed by another Bench of this Court vide Rana Umanath Bakhsh Singh v. Sheo Prasad Gupta 1944 O.A. 177 : A.W.R (CC) 177 : O.W.N. 247. 6. There is no force in this appeal. It fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.