T. Sathiadev, J. - (1.)THIS revision is filed against an order made in E.A. No. 694 of 1977 in E.P. No. 200 of 1977 on the file of the First Additional Sub -Judge, Pondicherry. The Court below held that the execution taken in respect of the mortgage deed dated 27th January, 1965 executed by Muthukrishnan can be proceeded with even though there has been a change in the law applicable in Pondicherry as on date. E.A. No. 694 of 1977 was filed under Section 151. Civil Procedure Code, by the judgment -debtor for dismissing the execution petition on the ground that a mortgage deed was executed on 27th January, 1965 by one Muthukrishnan for Rs. 35,000 and the said Muthukrishnan died in 1969, and the legal representatives are now being proceeded against for recovery of the mortgage amount. Under Article 2217 of French Code (Civil), no attachment can be effected without serving a commandment and the requirements prescribed under French Law had not been complied with. Entire debt was incurred for immoral activities and in particular Muthukrishnan was a drunkard and therefore the legal representatives are not liable to pay the debt.
(2.)THIS petition was opposed by the decree -holder claiming that, amount was borrowed by Muthukrishnan for lawful purposes and under the French law, as was in force at the time of the mortgage deed, it automatically becomes an executable decree, and in fact, to satisfy the amount due under the mortgage deed decree two payments were received by the mortgagee, the first of which was on 31st March, 1967 a sum of Rs. 3,033 and on 3rd April, 1969 a sum of Rs. 5, 000. There is no proof that the debt was incurred for any immoral purposes. A commandment was issued on 16th October, 1968, and it had been duly served on petitioner herein, and therefore the present proceedings taken to recover the amounts in execution is valid.
As stated earlier, the Court below held that a commandment bad been already issued on 16th October, 1968 and the mortgage deed under the French Law, as was in force, became a decree that can be directly executed and hence all the objections taken by the petitioner deserved to be rejected, and consequently rejected the petition, and ordered the settlement of proclamation for sale of the property.

(3.)MR . Raghavan, counsel for petitioner contends that after the passing of Central Act (XXVI of 1968 The Pondicherry. (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968)(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the concept of a mortgage automatically treated as an executable decree had disappeared, and respondents herein can recover the mortgage amount only by filing a civil suit, by obtaining a preliminary decree and thereafter a final decree, and only then, according to the decree, execution can be taken as against the petitioner. He relies upon Section 45 -A being introduced in the Civil Procedure Code by virtue of Act XXVI of 1968, to substantiate his contention that when a specific provision has been made as to what could be a decree, respondents cannot any longer rely upon the intendment found in the repealed French Law. As far as commandment issued on 16th October, 1968 is concerned, it is claimed that no such commandment could have been issued after the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code, in Pondicherry and what is relied upon is not a valid commandment at all. No doubt in the memorandum of grounds, it has been stated that the mortgagee having taken proceedings under the French Law, cannot seek relief under the Indian Law. But the main contention taken in the civil revision petition is whether mortgage dated 27th January, 1965, can be treated as a decree under the French Law, which can straightaway be executed under the Civil Procedure Code, which has been made applicable after the passing of the Act.