Judgment :- 1. The short point for decision in this second appeal is whether the order rejecting an application under S.7 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (Act 31 of 1958) is appealable. The appellant and the respondent are prior and subsequent mortgagees respectively, each of whom obtained a decree on his mortgage without impleading the other and purchased the mortgaged property in execution. Afterwards, the respondent sued in O.S. 462 of 1951 to redeem the appellant, and in that suit, the appellant as the earlier purchaser of the property, sought to exercise his right to redeem the respondent. The court gave certain directions as to this without allowing to the appellant the benefit of the Act as desired by him, but his right to make an application under S.7 of Act 31 of 1958 was expressly reserved and the decree itself was made subject to it. The appellant then made the application under S.7, for amendment of the decree. It was numbered and registered as O.P. 60 of 1960 in the court which passed the decree in O.S. 462 of 1951, and not as an application in that suit. The first court by order dismissed the application on the merits, and the appeal preferred against the order was itself dismissed, as no appeal was provided by the Act against an order refusing to amend the decree under S.7. 2. In second appeal, the appellant's learned counsel relied on the following dictum in R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar v. B. Chandrasekhara Thevar AIR. 1948 P.C. 12: "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" In the case before the Privy Council too, the application on which the order appealed against was passed, was made under S.19 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief act, IV of 1938, which corresponds substantially to S.7 of Act 31 of 1958. The motion under S.19 was made by interlocutory application numbered 361 of 1938 in the mortgage suit O.S. 5 of 1921, in which both the preliminary and the final decrees had already been passed. The motion under S.19 was made by interlocutory application numbered 361 of 1938 in the mortgage suit O.S. 5 of 1921, in which both the preliminary and the final decrees had already been passed. Yet the application was considered to be made in the suit and their Lordships held, that the order refusing to amend amounted to "the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to one of the matters in controversy in the suit, namely, whether the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist and entitled therefore to have his debt discharged or reduced under the Act. In their Lordships' opinion the order was a decree within the meaning of S.2(2), Civil P.C., and an appeal lay under S.96 of the Code". 3. The only difference I am able to perceive in the present case, is that although a decree had been passed in the suit as in the case cited, the motion under S.7 was not made by an interlocutory application in the suit, but by an original petition. This ought not to make any difference in substance, when the court in which the application was made, is the same as the court which passed the decree in the suit. Following the dictum of the Privy Council I hold, that the present second appeal and the appeal before the Additional District Judge were competent. Accordingly the order of the judge dismissing the appeal is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to him for disposal on the merits. No costs in this court. Allowed.