Judgment :- 1. A short but interesting question under Act XXXI of 1958 is raised in these second appeals. 2. The appellant in these cases is a debtor under two hypothecations; and the creditor, the respondent, filed two original petitions under S.8 of Act XXXI of 1958, which gave rise to these second appeals. The petitions were for fixing the amounts payable under S.8; but, when the petitions were filed, more than six instalments out of the seventeen as contemplated by S.4 (2) had already fallen due and had also been defaulted. The question for consideration is whether an application can be filed under S.8 after six or more instalments have fallen due and have been defaulted. 3. The counsel of the appellant argues that S.8 (1) provides for the filing of an application either by a debtor or by a creditor for an order fixing the amount payable under S.4. He argues further that if six instalments have fallen due and have been defaulted, the debt becomes impossible of payment under S.4, with the result that thereafter no application will lie under S.8 for fixing the amount payable under S.4. 4. S.4 (5) has a proviso to the effect that if default is made in the payment of six consecutive instalments, the debtor shall not be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of sub-sections 2 and 3 of S.4 and the whole debt together with such interest as may have accrued thereon less any amount already paid shall be forthwith payable. Even in cases where six consecutive instalments have been defaulted, this Court has held that the debtor will be entitled to benefits of the lesser rate of interest contemplated by S.5. The result is that even if six instalments have been defaulted, the entire amount of the debt with 5 per cent interest under S.5 will be payable under the proviso to S.4(5). It means that such a payment will be a payment under the proviso to S.4 (5), which again means that the payment is a payment under S.4. It follows that even in such cases an application under S.8 will lie. 5. I may in conclusion point out that S.8 provides for payment of court fee as if applications under that section were suits; and that the section provides further that the orders passed in such applications shall be executed as if they were decrees. It follows that even in such cases an application under S.8 will lie. 5. I may in conclusion point out that S.8 provides for payment of court fee as if applications under that section were suits; and that the section provides further that the orders passed in such applications shall be executed as if they were decrees. Therefore, it is only reasonable to think that the legislature contemplated that S.8 should apply to cases like these also, wherein six consecutive instalments or more have fallen due and been defaulted. 6. The second appeals are dismissed with half costs in each. Dismissed.