Judgment :- 1. The question that arises in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether under S. 15 of Act 38 of 1972, any period of limitation is fixed for an application by a judgment-debtor to be filed for amending a decree. In this case, the judgment debtor filed an application under S. 16 of the Act for stay of the decree on 8th October, 1973. The final decree in the mortgage suit came to be passed as early as 14th June, 1972. If the contention of the decree-holder that the judgment-debtors remedy to file an application to amend the decree can be filed only within six months from the date of publication of the Act, is correct, then the judgment debtor would not be a person entitled to the benefits of the Act. In that case, his application under S. 16 for stay would not be maintainable, for that Section says only a person who is entitled to the benefits of the Act can apply for stay. But, the question is whether an application by a judgment debtor under S. 15 for amending the decree ought to be filed within six months of the date of the publication of the Act. The Act itself was published on 15th December 1972. The application under S. 16 in which the present question had been raised, as I have said earlier came to be filed on 8th October, 1973, that is beyond a period of six months. “S. 15(1) is in the following terms:— “Where before the publication of this Act, a court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment debtor Who is a debtor within the meaning of this Act, or in respect of a Hindu joint family debt, on the application of any member of the family whether or not he is the judgment debtor or on the application of the decreeholder within six months from the date of publication of this Act, apply the provisions of this Act to such decree and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), amend the decree accordingly or enter satisfaction, as the case may be.” (Proviso omitted). 2. 2. On behalf of the decreeholder it is contended that the period of six months mentioned in the above section applies to an application not only by the decreeholder but also by a judgment debtor. But a true grammatical construction of the section would go to show that the clause ‘within six months from the date of publication of this Act” applies only to an application of the decreeholder and not to an application by a judgment-debtor or a member of a joint family in the case of a joint family debt. The significant fact to be noted is that after the words ‘on the application of a decreeholder’ there is no comma. That means that the subsequent clause ‘within six months from the date of publication of this Act’ has to be tacked on to the clause ‘on the application of the decree-holder’ and the said six months period would not be attracted to the earlier clause in the said section which deals with applications by judgment debtors or by the members of a joint family in case of joint family debts. In this vi ew, the order of the court below granting stay, even though the application under S. 16 came to be filed more than six months after the publication of the Act, till which period no application under S. 15 having been filed, is correct. 3. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.