9, Rule 7 has no application. The defendant comes up in revision.

1. It has been pointed out by the respondent that the final decree in the suit was passed on 29th November 1926, before this petition was filed in this Court, and it is contended that therefore it is not open to the petitioner to have the matter raised by way of revision since he can raise it by way of appeal against the final decree. It is not, however, an invariable rule of this Court that it will not interfere in revision when a party has another remedy open to him although certainly in such cases it would require very strong grounds to induce the Court to interfere. My attention has not been directed to any case in which this Court has interfered in revision to set aside an interlocutory order or finding in a suit on a petition presented after the final disposal of that suit by the lower Court. The petitioner obviously has his ordinary remedy by way of appeal. This is not a case in which the order under revision is an order absolutely without jurisdiction as was the case in Manickam Pillai v. M. Bathummal A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 209 relied on by the petitioner. I have, however, heard the case on the merits in orde