Judgment :- 1. The revision arises out of an order of the court below in an application filed under S.11 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act (Act 11 of 1970) for amendment of the application; and yet another application filed for impleading a party to the said application. Both these applications (I.A. Nos;764/74 & 765/ 74) were dealt with in a common order and allowed by the Munsiff of Neyyattinkara. 2. In this revision petition the point canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioners is that in an application filed under S.11 of Act 11 of 1970, there will be no warrant to apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and to entertain or allow either an application for amendment of the petition or for impleading additional parties. It was pointed out that where various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable to proceedings under the Act, the same has been done by specific provisions such as what is found in S.7(7) of the Act and S.14 (5) of the Act. It was stressed that such a provision is significantly and absolutely absent in S.11 of the Act. 3. We are not impressed by this argument. We think the matter is governed by the principle formulated by the Privy Council in R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar and Another v. R. Chandrasekhara Thevar (AIR 1948 Privy Council 12). The Judicial Committee there observed: "Where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute, the courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies if authorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal". The decision of the Privy Council was approved by the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. (AIR. 1953 S. C. 357). It has also been followed on several occasions. It is enough to refer to the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary (1968 KLT 583). On the above principle, we are of the opinion that even in the absence of an express provision, the ordinary rules of procedure would be attracted to the trial and disposal of an application under S.11 of the Act. On the above principle, we are of the opinion that even in the absence of an express provision, the ordinary rules of procedure would be attracted to the trial and disposal of an application under S.11 of the Act. Therefore, the court below was right in entertaining and allowing the applications for amendment and for impleading of parties. We dismiss this revision petition, but without costs. Dismissed.