JUDGMENT Allsop, J.
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Agriculturists' Relief Act and urged that a decree should he passed for payment by instalments. The trial Court gave a decree directing that the amount due should be paid in half yearly instalments of Rs 150 each. The principal sum decreed was Rs. 3,740 with interest at the rate of 3 1/2 per cent, per annum. There was an appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge of Bijnor. It was urged before him that the defendant respondent was entitled under the Agriculturists' Relief Act to instalments only over a period of 4 years because he was an agriculturist to whom Ch. 3 applied. The learned Judge accepted this contention but upheld the decree of the Court below upon the general ground that he was entitled to grant a decree for payment by instalments under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11, Civil P.C.
2. The provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act make it imperative on the Court to pass an instalment decree in certain circumstances. They do not derogate from the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11, Civil P.C. The learned Judge of the Court below was in my opinion right in saying that he was entitled to pass an instalment decree for payment at the rate of Rs. 150 every six months. It has further been argued that this Court should interfere because the learned Judge has not exercised his discretion to grant instalments on any known legal principles. I cannot accept this argument. The learned Judge has pointed out that the defendant respondent is a member of the legal profession and has said that the instalment decrees were perfectly fair and reasonable. No doubt the learned Judge meant that the defendant respondent was a respectable man who had not sufficient capital to satisfy the decree forthwith but who might be relied upon to satisfy it by degrees out of his learnings As interest has been allowed on the sum decreed, it cannot be said that the decision of the learned Judge of the Court below is so wrong that this Court should interfere upon the ground that no discretion was exercised.
3. It has been pointed out that the defendant respondent was not even entitled to instalments under the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act because he failed to establish that he was an agriculturist both on the date when he borrowed the money and on the date of the institution of the suit It appears that the defendant-respondent and the members of his family owned property on which they pay land revenue at the rate of Rs. 700 a year. Presumably the main source of income is from the respondent's exercise of his profession. As the Court below has not relied upon the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act, it is no longer a question of any importance whether the defendant-respondent could rightly claim relief under the Act. The relief granted under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 11, Civil P.C., is not such that there can properly be an interferons in second appeal. I dismiss the appeal with costs.