1. A short question under S.7 of Kerala Act XXXI of 1958 is involved in this case.

2. The petitioners are the judgment-debtors in a suit filed before and decreed after the commencement of the Act. At the time of passing the decree they sought relief under S.10 (3) and they were granted some relief as well. Thereafter, they filed an application under S.7 of the Act praying that the provisions of the Act might be applied to the decree and the decree be amended. This application has been rejected by the lower court and the correctness of that decision is being challenged before me.

3. The learned advocate of the petitioners invites my attention to a passage from a Division Bench ruling of this Court, to which I was a party. The case is M. K. Kuruvilla v. M. S. Joseph (1960 KLT. 1207) and the passage is to the effect that an agriculturist-debtor, against whom a suit is either pending at or instituted after the commencement of the Act, is entitled to claim relief under the Act both at the time when the decree is passed and also after the passing of the decree. The learned counsel argues on the basis of this passage that the agriculturist-debtor can seek relief under sub-sectio