JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the opposite party to show cause why certain orders should not be set aside and why execution of the decree obtained against the opposite party should not be allowed to proceed. The rule was granted upon these allegations: that the Petitioner Maharajah Sir Jotindra Mohan Tagore obtained a decree for rent against Durga Dabe and others; that upon his having applied for execution an order was made directing attachment and sale proclamation to issue and fixing the 6th March for the sale; that on the 6th March the date fixed for the sale one Mahamad Hosan Khan, a third party, filed a petition stating that he was interested in the holding and asked that he might be allowed to deposit the full amount of the decree in Court; that the Court having on the 6th March allowed this to be done, on the 9th March passed an order setting aside the execution proceedings on the ground that the amount of decree had been deposited and that full satisfaction of the decree had been entered up. It is the order permitting the deposit to be made and the order setting aside the execution proceedings that are now complained of. An affidavit has been filed on the other side on behalf of Mahamad Hosan Khan from which it appears that in execution of a mortgage decree against Durga Dabe and the other persons against whom the Petitioner obtained his decree for rent he had purchased the mourasi holding consisting of 74 bighas of land, the subject of the mortgage: that he obtained the sale certificate and was put in possession; that subsequently in 1902 the Petitioner in collusion with Durga Dabe and his other judgment-debtors obtained an ex parte decree against them for ejectment, and in execution of that decree the Maharajah, the Petitioner before us, obtained possession on the 17th July 1902; that thereupon Mahamad Hosan Khan filed a petition under sec. 332 of the CPC and having obtained a decision in his favour in November 1902, he was subsequently restored to possession of the mourasi holding and that he is still in possession; that the Maharajah again obtained another collusive and ex parte decree for rent against Durga Dabe and the others; whereupon Mahamad Hosan Khan as in the present case filed a petition and deposited the amount of the decree in Court; and that the deposit amounting with costs to Rs. 286-3-6 was withdrawn by the Maharajah in satisfaction of the decree. 2. In the petition upon which the rule was granted the making and withdrawal of the earlier deposit was not referred to. It was however stated that when Mahamad Hosan Khan made the later application to deposit the money he had alleged that he was a previous purchaser of the property from Durga Dabe and the other judgment-debtors of the Petitioner. The complaint of the Petitioner in this Court is that the Munsif in accepting the money took no evidence in support of this allegation of Mahamad Hosan Khan that he had purchased the property. Having regard to the circumstances relating to the withdrawal of the previous deposit he must have been aware of the purchase by Mahamad Hosan Khan but in his petition he stated that he had no knowledge of this fact and of the orders of the 6th and 9th March until the 24th March 1905, when he applied to the Munsif that the money deposited might be repaid to Mahamad Hosan Khan and the proceedings in execution be allowed to proceed. 3. It is clear, therefore, that on a previous occasion and under exactly similar circumstances the Petitioner withdrew a deposit which had been made by Mahamad Hosan Khan; and we doubt very much whether the rule would have been granted if this fact had been brought to the notice of the Court at the time the application was made. 4. The Petitioner relies upon the terms of sub-sec. (8) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section enables the judgment-debtor or any person having in the tenure or holding any interest voidable on the sale to pay the money into Court and so stop the execution proceedings. 4. The Petitioner relies upon the terms of sub-sec. (8) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section enables the judgment-debtor or any person having in the tenure or holding any interest voidable on the sale to pay the money into Court and so stop the execution proceedings. It is contended that Mahamad Hosan Khan is not a person who has any interest in the tenure or holding which would be voidable on a sale in execution and he is certainly not the judgment-debtor. He professed to be and is, if the affidavit filed in his behalf be true, a purchaser from the original tenants against whom the Maharajah obtained decrees, and it may be that if the tenure be put up for sale he will be seriously prejudiced. But it cannot we think he said that he is a person having an interest in the tenure or holding voidable upon the sale within the meaning of the section. 5. The question really which we have to consider in this case is whether under all the circumstances we ought to interfere. It is not suggested to us that the Petitioner would be prejudiced if he withdraws the money which has been paid into Court in full satisfaction of his decree. As already stated, on a former occasion he withdrew the full amount of the previous decree obtained under exactly similar circumstances. Whatever harm or prejudice might be caused or created by his now withdrawing the money deposited in the Court of the Munsif has already been caused or created by his having withdrawn the deposit on the previous occasion. Under these circumstances it seems to us that it will serve no good purpose to interfere. That being so, we discharge the rule with costs, which we assess at four gold mohurs.