ORDER K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 104 of 1978 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai in C.M.A. No. 198 of 1980 reversing the order passed by the District Munsif, Madurai. 2. Facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly as follows: The plaintiff, the respondent herein, filed O.S.No.104 of 17.4.1978 against the defendant for recovery of money on the basis of an equitable mortgage executed by the defendant on 22.2.1975 after borrowing a sum of Rs. 2,000 for family expenses. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Ordinance 5 of 1978, which has been now replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 and contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to half of the principal and half of the interest and that the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree only for Rs. 1,000 and interest thereon at 6% p.a. from 14-7-1978, the date of publication of the Act. Since the defendant was admittedly entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 a joint endorsement was made and the suit was decreed for Rs. 1000 with interest at 9% p.a. from 22.2.1975 till the date of plaint and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of payment and full costs of the suit. Subsequently, Act 40 of 1978 was repealed by Act 40 of 1979. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 758 of 1979 under Section 16 of Act 40 of 1979 read with Section 8(3) for amending the decree, contending that he is entitled to the full principal amount and also interest upto Rs. 1000. The said application was resisted solely on the ground that since the decree being a consent decree, it cannot be amended. 3. Learned District Munsif upheld the contention and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved with that order the plaintiff has preferred C.M.A. No. 198 of 1980 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai and the same was allowed. The aggrieved defendant has preferred this appeal: 4. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the court below is right in amending the decree passed by consent of parties, without their consent for such amendment? 2. The aggrieved defendant has preferred this appeal: 4. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the court below is right in amending the decree passed by consent of parties, without their consent for such amendment? 2. In view of the specific language of Section 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979, a decree already passed by consent of parties, can be re-opened? 5. Thiru G. Rangarathnam, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the joint endorsement was not made in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 5 of 1978. As the decree in respect of interest at 9% p.a. on 1000 and the payment of full costs was not in accordance with the said provision, but only as per the consent of the parties the decree is only a consent decree and the consent decree cannot be amended by filing application by one of the parties. Learned Counsel also submitted that in view of Section 33(2) of the Act it could not be re-opened and the liability cannot be increased. On going through the materials before me, I find that the only objection taken by the defendant in the written statement is that he is entitled to the benefits of Ordinance 5 of 1978, which has been subsequently replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Section 7 of Act 40 of 1970 deals with scaling down of debts incurred before the 14th day of July, 1978. As regards rate of interest, it is provided under Section 11 of Act 40 of 1978 that all debts which have been scaled down under the provisions of this Act shall, so far as any sum remains payable thereunder, carry from the date upto which they have been scaled down, interest on the principal amount due on that date at the rate previously applicable under law, custom, contract or otherwise, or at the rate of nine per cent per annum simple interest whichever is less. In the instant case, as per the contract, the rate of interest is 12%. Hence the minimum interest of nine per cent is adopted and that is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. In the instant case, as per the contract, the rate of interest is 12%. Hence the minimum interest of nine per cent is adopted and that is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. As regards costs, it is seen from Section 14 of the Act that there a decree is passed against any debtor in a suit instituted on or after the 14th day of July, 1978, the court shall allow only such costs as would have been allowable if the suit has been filed for the amount of the debt as scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this Act and where in any such case a decree has been passed before the said date the court shall, on application by the judgment-debtor within six months from the 14th day of July, 1978 amend the decree accordingly. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit is filed prior to 14.7.1978, i.e. on 17.4.1978 and as such it cannot be said that he is entitled to pro-costs as provided under the Act. There was a concession with regard to principal and interest and there was no concession with regard to the costs of the suit incurred by the plaintiff and as such I am of the view that the endorsement made by the party was only in accordance with the provisions of Act 40 of 1978 and not by any concession or by consent given by the defendant, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant. 7. As regards the power of amending the decree increasing the liability, it is useful to quote the relevant provisions of Section 16 of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. Where before the date of publication of this Act, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, 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 the decree-holder within six months from the date of such publication apply the provisions of this Act, to such decree and shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) amend the decree accordingly or enter satisfaction, as the case may be. It is seen from the said Act that, even in respect of a decree which has been passed prior to the date of promulgation of this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions of Act 40 of 1979 would apply and the decree has to be amended accordingly. In this connection, learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Subbiah, drew my attention to two decision of this Court reported in Lakshminarayana Reddiar v. T.K.S. Balarama Chettiar 97 L.W. 295 and Rama Reddiar v. Raja Reddiar 95 L.W. 52. In Narayana Reddiar v. T.K.S. Balqrama Chettiar 97 L.W. 295. Ratnam J., has held as follows: The inability of the creditor to recover the entire amount on the promissory notes under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, was not on account of any fault of the respondent. The statutory discharge or wiping out of one half of the principal and one half of the interest provided for under Section 7(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 was removed or erased by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Particularly Section 33(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, made provisions for the revival or restoration of the liability deemed to have been discharged under the provisions of Tamil Nadu 40 of 1978, as if that Act Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 was not passed. That would mean that the deemed discharge provided for under Section 7(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 should be deemed never to have taken place at all. The statutory deemed discharge under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, having been statutory undone by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, whatever rights were originally available to the creditor were restored to him protected from the bar or limitation to be enforced within the frame work of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. Ultimately, it was held that the second suit for the recovery of the balance half of the amount and interest maintainable. 8. Ultimately, it was held that the second suit for the recovery of the balance half of the amount and interest maintainable. 8. In Rama Reddiar v. Raja Reddiar 95 L.W. 52 Venugopal J., held that from the scheme of the Act it is clear that in all those cases where the debt or the decree has not been fully and factually discharged or satisfied, the application for scaling down such debts or decrees can be made under Act 40 of 1979 and that such being the scheme of the Act Section 33(2) has to be interpreted against this background and so interpreted, it would only mean that only in those cases where the decree passed has been executed and full satisfaction recorded, the bar under Section 33(2) will come into play. Applying the above principles, the learned Judge allowed the Civil Revision Petition and directed the trial Court to amend the decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The said decision is an answer to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Section 33(2) is a bar for increasing the liability. I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges in the two decisions, referred to above. Applying the ratio laid down in those cases, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in allowing the amendment, is either erroneous or illegal so as to warrant interference with the same. The substantial questions are answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, under the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.