1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of rent from one Narottam Lal and he applied to the Court for attachment before judgment of some moveable properties lying on the premises of Narottam. The Nazir of the Court went to the place and although the order of the Court was to attach the moveables that would be found there he wanted to take away the things, whereupon Harprasad Agarwalla, the opposite party who, I may mention here, is a brother of Narottam, paid down the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff against Narottam under protest claming the properties which were sought to be taken away by the Nazir as his and thereby saved the properties from being removed from the place. Thereafter Haraprasad applied to the Court for the refund of the money which had been paid by him and the learned Munsif allowed his prayer and directed a refund. It is against this order of the Munsif that the present Rule is directed.
2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should exercise our revisional powers. The order made by the learned Munsif was an order made under Section 151, Civil P. C, and the propriety of an order made under Section 151 cannot very legitimately be questioned under Section 115 of the Code. Besides, it would appear from what has been stated above that if Haraprasad deposited the money it was only because he did so to prevent the Nazir of the Court from doing a thing which he had not been authorized by the Court to do, The Rule must therefore stand discharged. We make no order as to costs in this Court.