Judgment :- 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this execution second appeal is whether the execution for costs decreed in a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction is hit by the Kerala Debtors (Temporary Relief) Act 30 of 1975, for short the Act. The judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 322 of 1973 is the appellant. The above suit was decreed with costs on 3-2-1974. The respondent decree holder filed E. P. 205 of 1975 on 25/6/1975. Kerala Act 30 of 1975 came into force on 14-10-1975. The execution court held that the costs sought to be realised in execution is a debt as defined by Act 30 of 1975 and dismissed the execution petition'for the time being' holding 'the Act as applicable to the debt'. From this order of the execution court the decree holder appealed to the court below. The court below held that the costs allowed in a suit or decree for possession of land should also stand the same footing as mesne profits as the direction to pay costs is only accessory to the main relief just as the mesne profits decreed in such a suit. Accordingly the court below set aside the order appealed against and directed the execution court to take the execution petition on file and proceed with the same. The judgment-debtor has come up in this second appeal against the judgment of the court below. 2. Accordingly the court below set aside the order appealed against and directed the execution court to take the execution petition on file and proceed with the same. The judgment-debtor has come up in this second appeal against the judgment of the court below. 2. S.2(4) of the Act reads: "2 (4) 'debt' means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by a debtor on or before the commencement of this Act, whether' payable under a contract, or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, but does not Include (clauses (a) to (n) omitted) Section 3 of the Act which provides for the bar of suits and applications and other proceedings reads: "3 Bar of suits and applications and other proceedings% No suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made and no appeal, revision petition or application for review against any decree or order in any such suit or application shall be presented or made in any civil or revenue court before the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act or such longer period as may be specified by the Government by notification in the Gazette; and all such suits, applications, appeals and petitions instituted, made or presented before such commencement and pending at such commencement shall stand stayed for the said period. Explanation I: In this section, the term 'suit' shall not include a claim to a set off made in a suit instituted by a debtor. Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, a suit in which a decree in respect of a debt is prayed for shall be deemed to be a suit for the recovery of the debt, notwithstanding that other reliefs are prayed for in such suit, and a decree shall be deemed to be a decree in respect of a debt notwithstanding that other reliefs are granted in such decree: Provided that a suit or decree for possession of land shall not be deemed to be a suit for recovery of, or a decree in respect of a debt by reason merely of mesne profits being also prayed for is included in such suit or decree. Explanation III:-Nothing in this section shall debar a decree holder from enforcing reliefs other than in respect of a debt where the decree contains independent reliefs." No doubt, costs decreed in a suit will be a debt as defined in the Act since it is not a liability which is not excluded by clauses (a) to (n) of S.2(4) of the Act. But the bar of suits, execution applications and other proceedings is by S.3 of the Act. As per Explanation II to S.3 a decree shall be deemed to be a decree in respect of a debt notwithstanding that other reliefs are granted in that decree. But Explanation II to S.3 read with the proviso makes it clear that a decree for possession of land shall not be deemed to be a decree in respect of a debt merely for the reason that mesne profits are also given by the decree. So the question is whether the decree in question namely a decree for possession of land with costs will be a decree in respect of a debt the execution of which will stand stayed till the expiry of one year from the commencement of the Act. It is a decree for possession of land and it will not cease to be a decree for possession of land simply because by the decree costs have been also awarded. As the bar in S.3 of the Act is against the execution of a decree in respect of a debt, the execution in question, which is an execution for costs in a decree for possession of land need not be stayed. The court below has approached the question in the proper perspective and there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the judgment under appeal. 3. In the result, the execution second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.