Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Laxmi Narain and Radha Kishan decree-holders to revise the order of the Additional Munsif, Jaipur East, rejecting their application under Order XXI, Rule 99, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE applicants got a decree for ejectment against the opposite party, which was finally confirmed by the High Court of the former Jaipur State on the 21st of July, 1948. Four months' time was given to the judgment-debtor to vacate the property in suit. THE judgment-debtor not having vacated the house within the time allowed by the decree, the decree-holders made an application for execution on the 27th of November, 1948. THE Nazir went on the spot to deliver possession to the decree-holders, but Nand Lal, son of Bhagirath judgment-debtor, who was found on the spot, ran away saying that he would bring his father, but did not return. Possession was, therefore, not delivered. Again, at the time of delivery of possession, two other sons of the Judgment-debtor, namely, Phoolchand and Madholal, came to the spot and obstructed delivery of possession. Subsequently one application was made by Phoolchand and Madholal on the 3rd of December, 1948, alleging that they held the property in their own right, and so possession be not delivered to the decree-holders. This application was, however, rejected. THEy filed a revision in the then High Court of Jaipur, in which it was ordered that enquiry be made. THE decree-holders also made an application on the 24th of March, 1949, under Order XXI, Rule 97, of the Code of Civil Procedure, that possession be delivered to them. THE Munsif, by his order, dated the 28th of March, 1951, held that the opposite parties, Pooolchand and Madholal, were in possession of the property in dispute bona fide in their own right, and consequently he held that they could not be ejected, and dismissed the application of the decree-holders, who have come in revision to this Court. It was argued by Mr. C. L. Agra-wal, appearing on behalf of the applicant-decree-holders, that the finding of the Munsif that because there had been partition between the judgment-debtor Bhagirath on one side and the opposite parties Phoolchand and Madholal. on the other, and they were carrying on their business separately at that shop, was erroneous, and that, at any rate, on that finding order should not have been made against the decree-holders that the opposite parties be not ejected, On behalf of the opposite parties it has been argued that the order of the learned Munsif was perfectly correct and that it could not be interfered with in revision. It was argued that the only thing that the Munsif had to see was whether the opposite parties Phoolchand and Madholal were claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on their own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor. This finding has been given by the learned Munsif in favour of the opposite parties, and the order was, therefore, "not capable of being interfered-with in revision. It was argued that if the decree-holders were dissatisfied with the order of the learned Munsif, their remedy lay by way of a regular suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further argued that the applicants had also filed an appeal in the District Judge's Court, and in that view of the case also no interference could be made in revision. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. So far as the appeal is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicants has given a statement that he has made an application for withdrawal of the appeal, and would not pursue it in the court of District Judge. The objection on this ground, therefore, has no force any longer. The main question is whether the order of the learned Munsif is such as can be revised under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a discretionary power of revision to this Court, when the following conditions are made out : - (a) where a subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) where it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) where it has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed that the lower court either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. The only thing that he has argued is that the lower court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally inasmuch as it wrongly held that the carrying on of separate business by the father and sons on the same shop amounts to possession in good faith in their own light by the opposite parties, Phoolchand and Madholal. I find from the judgment of the lower court that it had before its mind the conditions enjoined by Order XXI, Rule 99, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for refusing the "application by the decree-holders for delivery of possession under Order XXI, Rule 97. The lower court has said in so many words that Phoolchand and Madholal were holding the property in suit in good faith in their own right. It is not my business to say whether, if I were sitting in place of the Munsif, I would have come to the same finding or not. Suffice it to say that the conditions enjoined by law were present before the mind of the learned Munsif and after a careful consideration, he recorded a finding that Phoolchand and Madholal were holding the property in dispute in their own right in good faith. It cannot, therefore, be laid that the learned Munsif ignored any clear provisions of law and acted in their breach. The ordinary remedy given to a decree-holder under the circumstances is by a regular suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree-holders can very well avail of his remedy. Although the High Court is not barred from revising an order under Order XXI, Rule 99, of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet it can be done only in special cases. I do not find any special circumstances in the case on account of which I should interfere with the order of the lower court in revision. The proper course, as has been said above, is for the decree-holders to proceed by way of a regular suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is dismissed with costs to the contesting opposite party. .;