1. These are three rules calling upon the opposite party defendants to show cause why the decrees dismissing the plaintiffs' suits under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act should not be set aside on the ground that the plaintiffs were not dispossessed in due course of law. It appears that the plaintiffs were tenants on the land. There was a decree against their landlord for khas possession and in execution of that decree the Commissioner ousted not only the landlord but also the tenants. We do not think that this dispossession in execution of a decree for khas possession can be said to be a dispossession otherwise than in due course of law. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was hot intended to be used in cases of this kind for which a special provision was made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, Section 832 (to which, there is a corresponding provision in the Code of 1908). The learned Munsif has found against the plaintiffs on the facts and it appears that the dispossession was simply in execution of that decree. It is open to the plaintiffs to bring suits to establish their light, if they have a title as tenants and can claim to remain on the land. But so far as these suits go, it cannot be said that the Munsif has acted without jurisdiction or illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction, in dismissing them. We think, therefore, that the rules must be discharged with costs, one gold mohur in each case.