( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions arise out of two applications filed in exs. 48|70 and 49|70, arising out of OS. Nos. 73 and 74/67, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. Both the decrees are consent decrees and execution of these decrees is sought. ( 2 ) APPLICATIONS were filed in the said execution cases, viz. , IA. II in crp. 1620/70 and IA. III in CRP. 1621 of 1970, under the provisions of s. 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders Act, praying for the modification of the decree and requesting that the amount be directed to be paid by instalments. The learned Civil Judge considered both the applications and has dismissed them holding that the judgment debtor cannot ask the court below to pass an order granting relief under S. 27, in the absence of the consent of the decree-holder. It is against these two orders dismissing the applications under S. 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders Act that the present two revision petitions have been filed before this Court. ( 3 ) SRI M. L. Venkatanarasimhiah, learned Councel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that the present revision petitions are not maintainable and that the only remedy available to the petitioners, if any, is to file an appeal before the appropriate Court. In support of his submission, he has relied on a judgment of the High Court of Bombay reported in State of Bombay v. L. D. Naranyanapure, AIR. 1960 Bom. 334. . ( 4 ) UNDER S. 115 C. P. C. the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in cases in which an appeal lies. If an appeal ;s maintainable against the order passed by the court below, then the present revision petitions filed by the petitioner will have to be dismissed as being not maintainable in law. Section 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders act 1961 (Mysore Act No. 12 of 1962) reads as under:"21. If an appeal ;s maintainable against the order passed by the court below, then the present revision petitions filed by the petitioner will have to be dismissed as being not maintainable in law. Section 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders act 1961 (Mysore Act No. 12 of 1962) reads as under:"21. Power of Court to direct payment of decretal amount by instalments:- the Court may, at any time, on application of a judgment debtor, after notice to the decree holder direct that the amount of any decree passed against him, whether before or after the date on which this Act comes into force, in respect of a loan, shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions, and payable on such dates, as, having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of the decree, it considers fit. "section 24 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act reads: -"24. Power of the Court to direct payment of decretal amount by instalment:- notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. the Court may, at any time, on application of a judgment-debtor, after notice to the decree-holder, direct that the amount of any decree passed against him, whether before or after the date on which this Act comes into force, in respect of a loan, shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions and payable on such dates, as, having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of the decree, it considers fit. "the High Court of Bombay considered the question as to whether an appeal lies and the view taken by the Bombay High Court is that an appeal is maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment of Their lordships of the Bombay High Court is given below: -"an order under S. 24 cannot be regarded as a determination of a question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree under S. 47 of the Code. " "an order under S. 24 is a decree even if it is an order rejecting the application, so that the order leaves the original decree unaffected. This is because, an application under S. 24 is not an application for the amendment of the original decree. The application seeks a fresh decision of the Court on one of the matters in controversy in suit, viz. This is because, an application under S. 24 is not an application for the amendment of the original decree. The application seeks a fresh decision of the Court on one of the matters in controversy in suit, viz. , on the question whether the decretal amount should or should not be made payable by instalments and whether its payment should be subject to any conditions. . . . " ( 5 ) THE provisions of S. 24 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act and 27 of the Mysore Money Lenders Act are similar. Therefore, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and hold that an appeal does not lie under S. 47 but an appeal lies as if it is a decree. ( 6 ) AN application filed under S. 27 of the Act, whether it is filed in the suit or in the execution proceedings, is an application in the suit itself as what is being sought is an order making the amount payable in certain instalments. An illustration has been mentioned in the judgment of the Bombay High Court referred to above that it is just like an application under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. for the ascertainment of mesne profits. Therefore an application under S. 27 seeks a fresh decision of the Court on the question whether the decretal amount should or should not be made payable by instalments and whether the payment should be subject to any conditions. Being a fresh decision on one of the matters in controversy in the suit, the order is appealable whether the application is rejected or allowed. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petitions are not maintainable in law. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No Costs. --- *** --- .