Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to dispossession in the course of execution proceedings and not to dispossession after the termination of such proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Munsif allowing an application made under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties in these proceedings were the tenants of certain properties and these properties were sold at the instance of the zamindari in a rent execution case and the holdings were purchased by the zamindar himself. Thereafter the zamindar held these lands in khas. The opposite parties then applied to a Debt Settlement Board under Section 37a of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and that application culminated in an award under which the opposite parties received back their properties on April 10, 1949. It was alleged that since that date the opposite parties had been in possession of the properties.

( 3 ) AFTERWARDS another rent suit was instituted in respect of earlier rent and a decree was obtained and the property was put up for sale and purchased by an auction purchaser on October 26, 1949.

( 4 ) THE Court gave the auction purchaser delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure on July 8, 1950.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the opposite parties the auction purchaser did not on July 8, 1950 receive anything more than symbolic possession. But on July 18 the auction-purchaser physically dispossessed the opposite parties and took physical possession of the property.

( 6 ) THE opposite parties who had been dispossess, ed applied under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No written objection was filed. But it is quite clear from the case for the opposite parties and from the judgment of the learned Munsif that the allegation was that the opposite parties were dispossessed some ten days after delivery of possession had been given to the auction-purchaser by the Court under Order 21 Rule 95.

( 7 ) IT was contended on behalf of the auction purchaser that as the execution proceedings had terminated by delivery of possession by the Court on July 18 no application under Order 21, Rule 100 would lie in respect of dispossession at some later date. The learned munsif however held that the dispossession complained of need not be a dispossession in the execution proceedings and may be subsequent to it. Accordingly the learned Munsif made an order in favour of the opposite parties.

( 8 ) THE auction purchaser has preferred this petition and a preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies. It has been pointed out that the auction purchaser, if he was dissatisfied with, the decision of the munsif, could have instituted a suit under Order 21 Rule 103 and as that remedy was available to him the Court cannot entertain this application in revision.

( 9 ) THERE is nothing in the actual terms of Section 115 of the Code which would prevent the Court hearing this application. Where the order sought to be revised is appealable then no revision lies. But this order was not appealable, although it could be challenged by way of a suit. There is therefore nothing in the plain terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would bar this right of revision. This Court and other Courts constantly hear petitions for revision of orders made under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decisions upon applications under Order 21 Rule 58 can be challenged by a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 within twelve months. If this Court has jurisdiction to hear revisions from decisions under Order 21 Rule 58 it clearly has the same jurisdiction to hear revisions from decisions in applications under Order 21 Rule 100. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Sir George Rankin C. J, in which he held that the Court could not in the circumstances of that case interfere. A Court is not bound to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has a discretion, and the fact that there is an alternative remedy may influence a Court in the exercise of its discretion. It is one thing to