JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - The questions that we have to decide in this petition for revision are: (1) whether a revision is entertainable and (2) whether the order of the Court below was right:

2. The facts of the case, briefly, are these: The plaintiffs represent two or three brothers and the respondents represent the third brother, Lal Man. A partition suit was instituted by Lal Man, in his lifetime, and it is now pending for final decision before His Majesty in Council. The question in that case is whether Lal Man had separated or had an interest still left in the family property, on the ground that he was still joint with his brothers and their descendants. The applicants who were the plaintiffs in the Court below, filed a second suit, being No. 32 of 1925, for recovery of certain moneys due from debtors, as a delay in recovery of the debts would entail a loss of the property. Among the defendants were not only the debtors but also the representatives of Lal Man the respondents. The debtors paid the money into Court and the sole dispute in the suit remained between the very parties who are parties to the litigation now before the Privy Council. The learned Subordinate Judge, before