The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that parties must present all objections at the earliest opportunity, and the court should not allow repeated petitions on matters already decided.

Wallace, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order of the lower Court in a matter in execution. In O.S. No. 12 of 1901, the appellant obtained against the respondent 1 a mortgage decree under which the amount now owing is said to be about 43 lakhs of rupees. In 1905 he put in an execution petition E.P. No. 145 of 1905 in the lower Court to bring the mortgage property, Narayanavanam Taluk in Karvetnagar zamindari, to sale. In various Ways that sale has been delayed and postponed until 1925, when it was eventually begun but so far has not come to an end. In the meantime, respondent 2 on 6th -January 1927 bought at a Court sale in another suit, O.S. No. 9 of 1912, respondent 1s equity of redemption in this property. In M. P. No. 17 of 1927, respondent 2 applied in the lower Court to be brought on record in the appellants execution petition as the present holder of the equity of redemption in place of respondent 1 the original judgment-debtor. That was allowed by the Court on 12th April 1927. On 25th July 1927, respondent 1 put in M. P. No. 61 of 1927 in the E.P. stating that respondent 2s purchase in the Court-sale was benami for the appellant, his judgment-creditor, and asked that the Court would:

close the sale declaring the decree-holder to be the purchaser at the upset price of 29 lakhs.

2. That petition was dismissed on 3rd September 1927. Ten days later, respondent 1 put in M. P. 103 of 1927 alleging precisely the same facts as in M. P. 61 of 1927 and asking for the passing of the same relief, but by an amendment petition, M. P. No. 133 of 1927, he was allowed to amend the form of relief asked for into a request that his judgment-creditors decree had been fully satisfied by his purchase of the equity of redemption and, therefore, the execution petition should be dismissed. Against this petition, various preliminary objections were taken by the appellant, the judgment-creditor, on the ground of res judicata and that respondent 1 has no locus standi to move the petition at all. These have been heard and dismissed by the lower Court by the order now under appeal. The lower Court is now intending to proceed to decide on the merits, whether in fact the appellant was the purchaser of the equity of redemption. The appellant comes up here to have the enquiry stopped and respondent 1s M.P. 103 of 1927 dismissed on the preliminary points urged him in the lower Court.

3. It is contended by respondent 1 as a preliminary objection to this appeal that no appeal lies. The order of the lower Court appealed against is in form an interlocutory order and it has not finally disposed of respondent 1s M. P. 103 one way or the other. The learned Counsel for the appellant does not strongly contest this view, but urges that the finding that respondent 1 has a locus standi to maintain the petition is a final order and therefore appealable since, if the finding were against respondent 1 the miscellaneous petition would be finally disposed of. I do not think it necessary to go here into the somewhat complicated question of whether a decision which is only a final disposal of the whole matter in issue if decided in one way is a "decree" for purposes of appeal. I think the balance of authority is against that view and in favour of the view that in order to be a "decree" a decision must be a final disposal whichever way it has been or may be decided. In any case, the appellants counsel has not restricted the discussion merely to the question of respondent 1s locus standi but has raised questions of constructive res judicata as well. What the general discussion turned upon was the competence of the lower Court to ignore the previous orders passed by it -in the two earlier miscellaneous petitions by respondents 1 and 2. That is really a question of the irregular exercise of jurisdiction. I would hold that the civil miscellaneous appeal does not lie, but we have heard the appeal as a civil revision petition.

4. In order to decide whether