Das, J.

1. This is an application in revision by the decree-holder, and is directed against the order of the learned first Munsif of Patna, dated 18-5-1951, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 28 of 1951.

The only question for decision is if the learned Munsif was right in his view that Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act, was not bar to the application which the first opposite party filed, purporting to be an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C.

2. The material facts are the following.

The petitioner brought a suit for rent in respect of the holding in question and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree, the holding was attached. The first opposite party then made an application purporting to be an application under Order 21, B. 58, Civil P. C., and the main ground of attack was that the petitioner decree-holder had sued a wrong person in his suit for arrears of rent. The first opposite party claimed that he had purchased the holding by a registered sale-deed, dated 10-6-1951, and that he had paid the landlords fee and the landlord knew of the purchase of the holding.

3. Before the learned Munsif the contention of the decree-holder petitioner was that Order 21, Ru