Judgment :- 1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor in SCS. No. 117 of 1955, Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura, which is under execution in the court of the District Munsiff of Perintalmanna, against the order of the said court overruling his objections that he is entitled to relief under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958. There is no controversy that a decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura against the petitioner herein and the decree-holder was executing the said decree in the court of the District Munsiff of Perintalmanna which is now situated within the jurisdiction of the Kerala State. It is needless to mention that the court which passed the decree is situated within the Madras State. 2. The petitioner appears to have filed an application objecting to the decree being executed on the ground that he is an agriculturist, within the definition of that term as contained in Kerala Act 31 of 1958, and as such he is entitled to the protection given under the said enactment. 3. The right of the petitioner to claim relief under the Act as also the claim made by the petitioner that he is an agriculturist were all disputed by the decree-holder. The application filed by the petitioner appears to be in the main one under S.7 of the Kerala Act, 31 of 1958 which provides for amendment of decrees. Mr. Pathrose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that it can be construed to be also one claiming relief under S.4 of Kerala Act 31 of 1958. 4. The learned District Munsiff was of the view that the application filed by the judgment-debtor cannot be entertained by his court on the ground that he is only executing the decree of the Madras Court, namely, the Subordinate Judge's Court at Madura. In this view he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree, and has allowed execution to proceed. It is against this order of the learned District Munsiff that this CRP. has been filed in this court. 5. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Pathrose, learned counsel, has contended that the view taken by the learned District Munsiff is not correct. It is against this order of the learned District Munsiff that this CRP. has been filed in this court. 5. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Pathrose, learned counsel, has contended that the view taken by the learned District Munsiff is not correct. In my opinion, it is not necessary to consider the larger question namely, as to whether when a decree is passed by a court situated outside the limits of the State and when the decree has been sent to this State for purpose of execution it is open to the judgment-debtor to claim relief on the basis of the enactment existing in this State. In my opinion, the matter can be disposed of on a very short ground. Either the application has to be considered as one under S.4 claiming a right for payment of the debt in instalments or as an application under S.7 asking for amendment of the decree. In either case, in my opinion, the learned District Munsiff was perfectly correct when he held that his court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. 6. It is desirable to notice the relevant provisions of the Act so far as it relates to this particular aspect. 7. The relevant sections are S.4, 7 & 8 S.4 gives right to a judgment-debtor to pay the debt in the particular manner provided therein. If the present application is to be considered as one under S.4, S.8 also provides the forum where the particular relief is to be claimed. There is no dispute in this case that the decree-holder does not accept the right of the petitioner to pay the amount under S.4. Therefore, it follows that there is really dispute regarding the amount payable under S.4 in respect of this decree. In such a case, in my opinion, S.8, Cl. (2), sub-clause (a) is attracted. The debt sought to be realised in execution is one covered by a decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura, situated in the Madras State. S.8, Clause.2, sub-clause [a] provides "If the debt is covered by a decree, the application shall be made to the court which passed the decree". (2), sub-clause (a) is attracted. The debt sought to be realised in execution is one covered by a decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura, situated in the Madras State. S.8, Clause.2, sub-clause [a] provides "If the debt is covered by a decree, the application shall be made to the court which passed the decree". Therefore, if the application is one under S.4, and especially when there is a controversy between the parties as to the amount payable, if any, under S.4, the forum where the application is to be made, is the court which passed the decree. Therefore, a relief, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to, can be claimed only by making a suitable application to the court which passed the decree, which in this case is the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura. Sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of S.8 need not detain us in this particular case because admittedly, as stated by me earlier, the debt is covered by a decree in this case. 8. If, on the other hand, the matter is to be considered as one arising under S.7 of Kerala Act 31 of 1958, here again the petitioner is met with another difficulty because S.7 itself specifies the court, which has got the power to entertain an application for amendment of the decrees. S.7 is to the effect that where a court has passed a decree for repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist or on the application of the decree-holder apply the provisions of the Act to such decree. It also further says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure that court has power to amend the decree or enter satisfaction. It is very significant that S.7 after mentioning the fact that when a court has passed the decree for payment of a debt, specifically says that it is that court that has got the power to amend the decree or enter satisfaction on the application of any judgment-debtor or the decree-holder. Therefore, both S.7 & 8 themselves provide for the particular court, where an application for amendment of the decree or for an order fixing the amount is to be made. Therefore in any view of the case, the order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the application is perfectly justified in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, both S.7 & 8 themselves provide for the particular court, where an application for amendment of the decree or for an order fixing the amount is to be made. Therefore in any view of the case, the order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the application is perfectly justified in the circumstances of this case. The CRP is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.