JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— Unless the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order which is now objected to, no case has arisen for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, If the applicants, Baldeo Buksh Singh and Ragho Parsad Singh, were put into actual possession of the property in dispute upon the occasion of the execution of the decree of September, 1902, I should doubtless have no hesitation in following the decision to, which I have been referred in the case of Doulat Koer v. Rameswari Koeri, [1899] I.L.R., 26 Cal, 625. A Magistrate is not justified in disregarding the decree of a Civil Court. It is his duty to uphold and carry out that decree so far as lies in him to do so. 2. This is what is laid down in the case to which I have referred. It appears, however, from the perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate in this case, which has been very carefully prepared and which shows that he went into the evidence on the question of possession with care and at considerable length, that before and after the date of the execution of the decree in question, Raj Ballam Singh was, as it is called, in cultivatory possession of the lands in dispute. This being so, the decree only appears to have dealt, as the Magistrate points out, with the proprietorship of the land. Raj Ballam Singh was never disturbed in his possession of the holdings. That being so, I fail to see how it could be contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order which he did pass. His duty it was to ascertain who was in actual possession, and he has ascertained that question on evidence which appeared to him to be satisfactory. This being my view of the case, the rule must be discharged.