Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The petitioner sued the opponents in the Mamlatdar's Court at Navalgund for an injunction to restrain thorn from disturbing and obstructing the petitioner in the possession of the eastern moiety of R.S. No. 21 in the village of Umachagi in the Hubli Taluka of the Dharwar District. The Mamlatdar, relying upon E., tenancy register of the Record of Rights, and other documentary and oral evidence recorded in the case, found that the petitioner was in actual possession of the land in suit; that the opponents were obstructing him and that such obstruction first commenced within six months before the 30th August 1917 when the suit was filed by the petitioner. Therefore the Mamlatdar issued an injunction as had been prayed for by the petitioner. The opponent applied in revision to the Collector of Dharwar under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Collector took a different view of the evidence and held that the opponent Basangowda was the owner of the land in suit. Accordingly he set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and cancelled the injunction.
2. A rule was granted by Mr. Justice Pratt calling upon the opponent to show cause why this order of the Collector should not be set aside. The Rule gas now come on for arguments. In our opinion the Court should be slow to exercise its powers of revision under Section 115 of the Code unless the party applying to the Court has no other remedy. But in a case where the proceedings which are sought to be revised are purely summary proceedings, which did not finally decide the dispute between the parties, then as far as we are concerned we do not think that we should exercise our powers of revision. The rules are therefore discharged with costs.
3. I concur. Not only have the applicants in these cases a remedy by suit, but that is the remedy which I very strongly hold the law intends that they should take.