ORDER C.A. Viadialingam, J. 1. In this civil revision petition, Mr. K. Sreedharan, learned counsel for the debtor-petitioner, challenges the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, namely. C.M.P. No. 4355 of 1964, to review the order passed on 1st February 1964. 2. If it is only a technical default committed by the petitioner in not appearing on 1st February 1964, the date to which the application filed by the decree-holder was posted for objection, I would have certainly Considered the question of setting aside the order and remanding the proceedings for giving an opportunity to the petitioner for placing his objections, if any, which he could not do on that day. But the position is not so simple as I would immediately show. 3. The petitioner filed D.R.P. No. 31 of 1959 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, under section 8 of Act 31 of 1958. The transaction in question, in respect of which the petitioner sought an adjudication by the court under section 8 of Act 31 of 1958, is one dated 11th May 1955. That document provided for payment of interest by the petitioner at 12 per cent per annum and there is no controversy about it. 4. In the application filed by the petitioner, namely, D.R.P. No. 31 of 1959, under section 8 of the Act, an order was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 11th June 1959, fixing the total liability of the petitioner as well as the further fact, namely, in respect of each instalment the petitioner will have to make a deposit or payment in the sum of Rs. 465.66 p. 5. That order passed on 11th June 1959 has become final and the petitioner also did not seek to challenge that order. Therefore, so long as the order dated 11th June 1959 passed under section 8 of the Act complying with the provisions of the Act stands, the petitioner's liability will be to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the document, namely, from 11th May 1955 till the date of the commencement of the Act and at 5 per cent per annum after the date of coming into force of Act 31 of 1958. 6. 6. The respondent filed an execution petition to recover the amounts fixed by the order dated 11th June 1959 and it is seen that the respondent claimed in the original execution petition recovery of interest only at 5 per cent per annum. But realising his mistake that the parties are governed by the order dated 11th June 1959 the respondent filed an application to amend his original execution petition by stating the correct rate of interest to which he is entitled to and to recover the amounts having due regard to the order dated 11th June 1959. So far as that amendment application is concerned, it was posted to 1st February 1964 for filing of objections if any by the petitioner and on that date, it is the case of the petitioner, that he was ill and therefore he could not appear in court. Therefore, no objection was filed on 1st February 1964; on that date the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the execution petition was ordered. Therefore, the petitioner filed on 21st September 1964 C.M.P. No. 4355 of 1964, the order which is under attack, requesting the court to review the order of the court dated 1st February 1964 permitting the application of the respondent to amend his execution petition by claiming 12 per cent interest from the date of the document up to the date of the Act and 5 per cent interest after the date of the Act. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the opposition by the respondent has ultimately dismissed this application by his order dated 13th January 1965. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, which states that inasmuch as the petitioner has made several payments, the correctness of the amount claimed by the decree-holder can be ascertained even at a later stage, is erroneous, and unless the amount that can be claimed by the decree-holder is settled, even now the execution proceedings should not be allowed to proceed. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Sreedharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that once the decree-holder himself has claimed to recover in the execution petition interest only at 5 per cent per annum, he should not have been permitted to amend his execution petition, as has now been done by the lower court, by falling upon a larger right for recovery of 12 per cent interest from the date of the document till the date of the Act. The learned counsel urged that inasmuch as his client was ill on 1st February 1964, no objection in this regard could be filed by his client. If his client had been given an opportunity to contest the application filed by the respondent, he would have relied upon the provisions of section 5 of Act 31 of 1958 as amended by, 1961 Act, and that opportunity, the learned Counsel points out, must have been given by the lower court and inasmuch as it has not been done, the order of the lower court will have to be set aside. 9. But to a direct question by the court to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the opportunity that he wants to be given to his client is not in substance to re-open the order dated 11th June 1959, the learned counsel for the petitioner, quite naturally, found considerable difficulty in giving an answer to that question. The attempt of the petitioner, so far as I could see, is not to make any grievance as against any amendment applicant- tion that has been allowed in favour of the respondent, but to urge the executing court that the order passed on 11th June 1959 requires further modification in view of the provisions contained in section 5 of Act 31 of 1958 as amended by the 1961 enactment. 10. Mr. K. Ravindranathan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that the proceedings initimated by the petitioner himself claiming relief under Act 31 of 1958, namely, the application in D.R.P. No. 31 of 1959 filed under section 8 of Act 31 of 1958, which gives jurisdiction to the court to fix the amount that is payable by the petitioner in respect of the debt and also the amount of instalments at which it has to be paid. That is what was done by the court by its order dated 11th June 1959, in which it was specifically provided that the petitioner is to discharge his liability at 12 per cent interest from 11th June 1955, the date of the document, till the date of the passing of the Act 31 of 1958, and thereafter, at 5 per cent interest. That order, the counsel points out, has become final. No doubt by some mistake in the execution petition that was originally filed by the respondent, he has calculated interest only at 5 per cent throughout, which mistake was sought to be rectified by filing an amendment application so as to bring in it all the reliefs asked for and to accord with the order passed on 11th June 1959. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that what has been done and permitted to be done by the court by allowing the amendment asked for by the respondent is to enable his client to claim the reliefs on the basis of the order dated 11th June 1959. To the order passed on 11th June 1959, the learned counsel points out, the petitioner can have no objection, unless he is given any right under the Act, as amended by the 1961 enactment to have the order further amended. It is not 4 the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel points out,that the respondent is in any manner urging the court to grant reliefs not provided for either in the Act or in the order dated 11th June 1959. The learned counsel points out that if the attempt of the petitioner, as is now seen, is to re-open the order of the lower court, dated 11th June 1959 that could only be done by asking for an amendment of the order dated 11th June 1959, treating it as a decree. Such an application can only be filed under section 7 of the Act. It has now been held by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Parameswaran Pillai v. Kochukunju Panickir 1965 K.L.T. 1133 that an order passed under section 8 of Act 31 of 1953, cannot be considered to be a decree so as to enable a party to ask for an amendment of that order treating it as a decree under section 7 of the Act. 12. My learned brother Mr. 12. My learned brother Mr. Justice V. P. Gopalan Nambiyar, delivering judgment on behalf of the learned Chief Justice and himself has considered this aspect and ultimately held that no application for amendment of an order passed under section 8 can be filed under section 7 of the Act. 13. A perusal of that decision will show that in that case also an order fixing the liability as well as the instalments has been passed on an application filed under section 8 of the 1958 Act and that order was passed prior to the amendment Act of 1961, because the order under section 8 was passed on 25th October 1960. It is also seen that after the amendment of Act 31 of 1953 by Act 2 of 1961, the debtor filed an application for amending the order passed under section 8 by filing an application under section 7 of the Act. 14. Both the Subordinate Courts had held that the application is not maintainable and that view has been accepted by the learned Judges of this Court. 15. Therefore, it is seen that the attempt of the petitioner is really to go behind the order passed on 11th June 1939, which cannot certainly be permitted. Therefore, on that short ground, there is no purpose to review the order passed by the lower court on 11th June 1959 and his application will have to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.