JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Munsif converting a decree into an instalment decree. It appears that the present Petitioners obtained a decree for ejectment and for arrears of rent. They took out execution for the amount of decree for arrears of rent and the judgment-debtor made an application to have the decree converted into an instalment decree. The learned Munsif acceded to that application and in my view quite wrongly. He could only do so under the provisions of Or. 20, r. 11 (2) which requires the consent of both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. It is not suggested that the decree-holders ever consented in this case. 2. On behalf of the Opposite Party it was urged that in any event no revision lay because what the Munsif had done was to make a mistake in law. In my view, however, it is more than that because the Munsif had no jurisdiction whatsoever to alter the decree into an instalment decree except with the consent of both parties. 3. The Opposite Party, however, takes another point which to my mind is bound to succeed, namely, that no revision lay because this order of the Munsif was appealable. It is urged that this is an order which falls within sec. 47 and, therefore, an appeal would lie. On the other side it is urged that this is not an order relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, but merely relates to postponement of the decree, in other words, postponement of the satisfaction of the decree or the discharge of the decree. It is an order which is most closely connected with the mode of execution, the mode of discharge, and the mode of satisfaction, and that being so it seems to me clearly to be an order falling within sec. 47. This has been so held by a Bench of the Rangoon High Court in Abdul Karim v. Maung San Kyaw AIR [1932] Rangoon 54. 4. In my judgment this order was appealable and that being so, the case does not fall within sec. 115 of the CPC and no revision lies. 5. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. The Rule is, therefore, discharged. But I would make no order as to costs in this Rule.