S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. This revision petition raises a. very interesting question of law which, of course, arises in turn out of the consideration whether the order of the Court below, which is the subject-matter of this revision, petition is revisable under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court had not taken into consideration whether the judgment-debtor has got sufficient means to pay the debt in. accordance with the provisions of Section 51 Civil Procedure Code, as well as Order 21, Rules 37, 38 and 40, Civil Procedure Code, and as such, this order under revision is liable to be revised by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. G. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not as if the judgment-debtor has not gone into the box and deposed about the situations that are prevailing at the time of the hearing of R.E.P. No. 266 of 1980. The order made in the above petition, i.e., R.E.P. No. 266. of 1980 is now the subject-matter of this revision. In fact, the learned Counsel for the respondent had himself admitted that he has got a share in a property to which he had made a claim