1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows:
One Bhadani executed a deed of mortgage in respect of a house in favour of the applicant, Murtaza Khan. The latter sued for recovery of his money and obtained a preliminary decree on the 15th July 1918. Subsequently, a final decree was drawn up in favour of Murtaza Khan on the 5th of June 1919. In execution of that decree the mortgaged property, that is, the house, was put up to sale on the 23rd of July 1919 and was purchased by one Lalta Singh. The sale was confirmed on the 26th of August 1919. From the sale proceeds the decree of Murtaza Khan was paid off on the 3Cth of August 1919 and the balance of the sale price was paid to the other creditors of Bhadani, the judgment-debtor. Ram Prasad instituted a suit on the 31st of July 1919 for a declaration that the house sold on the 23rd of July 1919 in execution of the decree of the 6th of May 1919 was not liable to attachment and sale as it belonged to him and not to Bhadani. The claim was brought against Lalta Singh the auction-purchaser, Bhadani, the judgment-debtor and Murtaza Khan, the decree-holder. On the 10th September 1919 Lalta Singh filed an application before the Munsif asking him to call upon Murtaza Khan to deposit the decretal amount that he had realised through Court on the 30th of August 1919 on the ground that in case the suit of Ram Prasad succeeded Lalta Singh, the auction purchaser, would, stand to lose his money, as Murtaza Khan was a poor man. The Munsif allowed the application on the 24th November 1919 directing Murtaza Khan to deposit the money that had been paid to him on account of the decree by Court on the 30th of August 1919. Two days after, that is, on the 26th November 1919, at the instance of Lalta Singh, the Munsif issued a warrant of arrest against Murtaza Khan for the realisation of the money, Murtaza. Khan has some up in revision to this Court. He challenges the order of the Munsif dated the 24th of November 1919 and contends that the order is not justified under the law or by any just or equitable consideration. He describes the order as arbitrary and without any justification. On behalf of Lalta Singh two objections are taken to the application. The first is a preliminary objection based on the case of Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 1 : 34 A. 592 : 10 A.L.J. 130 and is to the effect that no revision lies from an interlocutory order, this order under revision being described as an interlocutory order. I do not think that the objection on behalf of the opposite party has any force. In the case of Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 1 : 34 A. 592 : 10 A.L.J. 130 it was laid down that no revision lay to this Court from an interlocutory order which order could be contested in appeal. In the present case, if Ram Prasad succeeds, Murtaza Khan cannot go up in appeal against Ram Prasad and object to the order of 24th November 1919 in his grounds of appeal, because the order does not in any way affect the merits of the case of Ram Prasad. The second objection on behalf of the opposite party is that Murtaza Khan is a man of straw and if he is not made to deposit the money that he realised from Court on account of his decree now, Lalta Singh, the auction-purchaser, in case of the success of Ram Prasad will be unable to get back his money. This objection is really irrelevant. The fact that the decree-holder is a poor man, which fact by the way is not admitted, will not enable Lalta Singh to ask the Munsif to pass an order which is not warranted by law. The learned Vakil for Lalta Singh has been unable to show to me any provision of the law under which an order of the kind that is under' discussion can be passed by a Court of law. The order is an arbitrary one and quite uncalled for. I, therefore, accept the revision and set aside the order of the lower Court, dated the 24th of November 1919. The applicant will get costs of this application.