1. The principal question that falls to be decided is whether the lower appellate court was wrong in dismissing the appeal out of which the revision arises, as not maintainable. On January 5, 1977 the respondent decree holder filed an execution petition for recovery of the amount due to him. The petitioner who is the judgment-debtor raised objections to the execution claiming the benefits of Ordinance 1 of 1977 and later made an application E. A. 660 of 1977 for relief under Act 17 of 1977, which had, in the meanwhile replaced Ordinance 1 of 1977. After enquiry the execution court by its order dated October JO, 1977 overruled the objections of the petitioner and dismissed E A. 660 of 1977 and allowed the respondent to proceed with the execution. From this order the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Additional District Court, Parur. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the order was "not a decree by virtue of the Amendment Act (Act 104 of 1976)". The petitioner challenges this decision in the revision.

2. Before it was amended by Act 104 of 1976 the Code of Civil Procedure by S.2(2) defined '-decree" to incl