Judgment :- 1. Under S. 19 as well as under S. 20 of Act IV of 1938, an application can be maintained only if the applicant shows that he is a person entitled to the benefits of the Act. In the present case, the application under S. 20 has been dismissed by the executing court on the ground that the question whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Act as amended by Act 8 of 1973 has been gone into in the suit itself and the court has held finally that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. 2. In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the contention of the learned counsel is that the question whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Act or not, is a matter that has to be considered only in the application under S. 19, (by the court which passed the decree) and that question cannot be gone into at all by the executing court. It may be that if an application under S. 19 for scaling down the debt has already been filed in the court which passed the decree and the matter is under consi deration by that court, the executing court need not go into the question whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits or not. But, before ever such a question is actually agitated before the court which passed the decree in an application under S. 19, the executing court has necessarily to go into the question whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Act or not, for, S. 20 starts with the words “Every court executing a decree passed against a person entitled to the benefits of this Act. .. ” 3. Therefore, it will not be right to contend that the executing court should never go into the question whether the applicant is a person entitled to the benefits of the Act or not and that question should be relegated to be decided only in an application under S. 19. 4. .. ” 3. Therefore, it will not be right to contend that the executing court should never go into the question whether the applicant is a person entitled to the benefits of the Act or not and that question should be relegated to be decided only in an application under S. 19. 4. In the present case, it is not disputed that the very question, namely, whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Act as amended by Act 8 of 1973, has been decided in the suit itself and the decree against the applicant is on the basis that he is not entitled to the benefits. Naturally, the executing court cannot go behind the abovesaid decree and the court is perfectly correct in its view that the applicant before it not being a person entitled to the benefits of the Act, the application does not lie. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeal against the dismissal of the application under S. 20 fails and the same is dismissed. 5. The Civil Revision Petition arises in respect of the proclamation made in execution in the above matter. It is stated that the revision petitioner (judgment-debtor) had not been given an opportunity to state his valuation of the property sought to be sold as the proclamation had been settled immediately after the dismissal of the application under S. 20 of Act IV of 1938. 6. The civil revision petition is allowed to the limited extent that the executing court shall give an opportunity to the judgment debtor to state his valuation of the property to be sold and incorporate the same in the proclamation before ordering sale. No costs in the appeal as well as the revision petition.