Sharma, J. - (1.) THERE are ten decrees some against one Jani deceased some against his heirs and others against his son Mohammda alone or both. The decree No. 1 referred to in the judgment of the lower court has been obtained by Gopi Ram and Babu Lal against Jani and Mohammda. Decree No. 2 has been obtained against the same judgment debtor by Kedar. Decree No. 3 has been obtained by Parshotam Dass and Kaisar Deo against Jani deceased alone and against the same judgment debtor decree No. 4 has been obtained by Sita Ram and decree No. 5 has been obtained by Gokal Chand and Radheyshiam and decree No. 6 by Rameshwar Dass against five heirs of Jani deceased including Mohammda. Decree No. 7 has been obtained by Nagarmal and Bhagwati Pershad; decrees No. 8 and 9 by Chiranji Lal, Madan Lal, Ram Saran and Nand Lal and decree No. 10 by Radha Krishnen and Sanwal Ram against Mohammda. All the decrees except the decree No. 2 are of the Court of Munsif Jhunjhunu. The decree No. 2 alone is of the court of the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu. The decree holders of decree No. 1 placed their decree in execution and attached a house. The decree holders -of all the other decrees applied for rateable distribution of the assets. In the first instance an account was prepared according to which certain sums were shown as distributable to the decree holders of the different decrees. The learned Munsif sent notices to all the decree holders except the decree holder of decree No. 1 to file objection if any against the amount shown by the court. The decree holders of decrees No. 7 to 10 only filed their objections. The decree holders of other decrees did not raise any objection. The learned Munsif found that the statement previously prepared was not correct and consequently he prepared another statement holding that the different decree holders were entitled to the amount shown in last statement. The decree holders of decrees No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have come in revision to this court against the order of the learned Munsif.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, their remedy was by way of suit under sec. 73 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and no revision was permissible under the circumstances. The learned counsels for the applicant has argued that revision was permissible because in the first instance the remedy by way of suit under sec. 73 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was doubtful and even if that was one of the remedies it was very expensive and inconvenient and so the revision could lie. He has not argued that taking the house to be the property of Jani and Mohammda in equal shares, the last account prepared by the learned Munsif is incorrect. But he has argued that the lower court was wrong in holding that the house belonged to Jani and Mohammda both in equal shares. He has further argued that no notice of the objection of decree holders No. 7 to 10 was given to the applicant and therefore, he had no opportunity to object. Consequently the order was of no effect against them. The learned counsel for the opposite party replies that the question that the house belonged to Mohammda and Jani in equal shares was a question of fact and it cannot be challenged in revision. Further he has argued that when the applicants were given notices after the preparation of the first statement of account they should have tried to find out what objections were preferred by the other decree holders. If they did not do so they have no right to challenge the second statement on the ground that it was prepared behind their back. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has provided a discretionary remedy and the High Court can under certain circumstances interfere with the orders of the subordinate courts. The conditions are as follows; - (a) When the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) it appears to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) it appears to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the first instance, therefore, one or the other condition laid down in clause (a), (b) and (c) of sec. 115 should be fulfilled. In the present case it cannot be said the lower court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. It cannot also be said that it failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. It has got to be seen only whether it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Under sec. 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure proceeds can be rateably distributed when more persons than one have, before the receipt of assets by the execution court, applied to the court for the execution of decree for the payment of money passed against the same judgment debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof. In the present case all the decree holders applied before the receipt of assets by the executing court. All the decrees are for the payment of money against Mohammda. The court was therefore, entitled to rateably distribute proceeds and in cannot be said that it committed any illegality in determining and distributing them. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that no notice was given of the objection of decree holders of decrees No. 7 to 10 to the applicants and therefore, the decision of the lower court is not binding upon them. I do not think that having been served with a notice of the statement previously prepared a further notice was necessary to the applicants of the objections raised by the decree holders of decrees No. 7 to 10. The applicants knew that there were many decree holders and they should have known that some of them might raise objections. They should have therefore, taken care to see what were the objections of the other decree holders. If they did not care to see and the learned Munsif modified the former statement, it cannot be said that he committed any material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. I, therefore, hold that the order of the lower court is not open to revision. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion whether a suit is permissible under sec. 73 (2) and if so whether interference in revision would be competent on that ground alone. Application for revision is dismissed. Under the circumstances, I order that the parties shall bear their cost of this revision. . ;