Judgment :- 1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise from an application under S.22 (2) (a) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (XXXI of 1958) for setting aside a court sale of immovable property in execution of a decree. The sale was confirmed on 6121116 and part of the property was delivered over to the decree-holder auction-purchaser on 212 1958. The rest of the property is in the possession of a receiver appointed by court on 1121955 who reported that he took possession of the same on 5121955. The execution court dismissed the petition by order dated 23rd July 1959 and CRP. No. 208 by defendants 2 and 3 is directed against the said order. The defendants applied for review of the order dated 23 71959, and the execution court allowed the same on 25th August, 1959, setting aside the dismissal of the petition under S.22. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 preferred an appeal before the District Court of Ernakulam from the order dated 25 81959 and the appeal was allowed holding that the execution court had no jurisdiction to review its order as the power of review was not expressly provided for by Act XXXI of 1958. Aggrieved by the appellate decision, defendants 2 and 3 have preferred C. R. P. No. 235 of 1960. The two revision petitions were heard together. 2. C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 must be dismissed on the short ground that the order dated 23 71959 which is sought to be revised is appealable as held in Narayani v. Govindan (1961 KLT. 312). It is true that the right of appeal was conferred only by Act II of 1961 long after this revision petition was filed and admitted, but as Raman Nayar J. has pointed out in the decision cited above, the amending Act (II of 1961) has been made retrospective and S.23A which was added by the amending Act must be deemed to have come into force on 14-7-1958. Even if the Act had not been amended, I would have been inclined to hold on the strength of the decision in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhar a Thevar (AIR. 1948 PC. 12) that the party had a right of appeal. C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 must therefore be dismissed. 3. Even if the Act had not been amended, I would have been inclined to hold on the strength of the decision in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhar a Thevar (AIR. 1948 PC. 12) that the party had a right of appeal. C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 must therefore be dismissed. 3. Coming to C. R. P. No. 235 of 1960, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the execution court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order cannot be supported. The decision of the Privy Council in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar referred to above has set at rest the question whether an appeal lies from the decision of the civil court while dealing with a legal right conferred by a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal. It was held: "The true rule is that where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary courts of the country are seized of such dispute the courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies, if authorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal." The principle of this decision is applicable to this case. The execution court was disposing of an application to set aside a sale of immovable property on a ground available under Act XXXI of 1958. The court could review its decision just as it could have done, had the application to set aside the sale been under Order XXI, R.89 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the learned District Judge had dealt with the matter on the merits, it would have been possible to dispose of the matter here, but although he started to discuss the question whether this was a case in which the power of review should have been exercised, the discussion is inconclusive, as he felt that it was unnecessary in view of his decision on the question of jurisdiction. It has therefore become necessary to remand the matter to the lower appellate court for fresh decision. That court will decide all the other points raised by the parties and also whether the order allowing the review is proper. It has therefore become necessary to remand the matter to the lower appellate court for fresh decision. That court will decide all the other points raised by the parties and also whether the order allowing the review is proper. I do not consider it necessary or proper to express any opinion at this stage on the questions raised before me by the respondent, such as that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, that the court in exercising the power of review was sitting in appeal over its decision and that the defendants have not deposited the correct amount under S.22, etc. 4. In the result, C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 is dismissed. C. R. P. No. 235 of 1960 is allowed and the decision of the lower appellate court is set aside. The lower appellate court will take C. M. A. No. 57 of 1959 back on its file & dispose of it afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.