Horwill, J.

1. These are disputes between the successors of two puisne mortgagees, each having obtained a decree without making the other a party. One Srinivasalu Naidu was appointed a receiver in his suit and was allowed to remain in possession as such until his death. After his death, the other mortgagees, through whom the respondents claim, put in a petition for possession and the petition was granted ex parte. The present petitioners, the successors in interest of Srinivasalu Naidu, thereupon filed applications under Order 21, Rule 100, complaining of the dispossession and setting forth their right to retain possession. After enquiry an order was passed confirming the previous order and dismissing the petitions. A preliminary objection has been taken here as to the maintainability of the petitions. I have no doubt from the authorities quoted to me, e.g., Seetaramayya v. Subramanian 1935 58 Mad 936, Birj Mohan Thakoor v. Uma Nath Choudhury (1892) 19 IA 154, Sundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar 1921 44 Mad 554 and Indu Bhusben Das v. Haricharan Mandal 1931 58 Cal 55, that a revision petition will lie; but the question still remains whether this Court should interfere in orders of this