JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application in revision and arises out of the following circumstances: The opposite party obtained a mortgage decree against certain property. The decree was put into execution and the property sold. The present applicant, Ram Narain, filed an application to have the sale set aside. It was disallowed. He appealed to this Court which dismissed the appeal on 12th May 1913. The decree-holder purchased the property at the sale. He applied to the Court to be placed in possession of the property. An order was issued to the Amin. Ram Narain filed an application under O. 21, R. 100. On the date fixed the decree-holder failed to appear. The Court found that the objection filed by Ram Narain, was valid and that he was in possession of the property to which his objection related and it passed an order dismissing the application for delivery of possession with costs for want of prosecution. The proper order which the Court ought to have passed on this application was an order directing the objector Ram Narain to be reinstated in possession of the property. 2. However a short time after this, the decree-holder again put in a fresh application asking the Court to place him in possession of the property which he had purchased. An order was passed and the Amin went and placed him in formal possession. Thereupon Ram Narain again applied to the Court under O. 21, R. 100, and that Court, without making any inquiry rejected the application on the ground that by reason of this Court's order, dated 12th May 1913. Ram Narain had no locus standi for the objections taken by him against delivery of possession to the opposite party. It is quite clear that the Court below had completely misunderstood the judgment of this Court dated 12th May 1913 Ram Narain within three weeks of this order applied to the Court below for review. That application remained pending till 2nd January 1914, when it was finally rejected. 3. He filed the present application in revision on 2nd February 1914. There has been therefore no undue delay. Objection is taken that it is contrary to the practice of this Court to entertain an application in revision when a remedy by way of regular suit is open to the applicant. We agree with this. 3. He filed the present application in revision on 2nd February 1914. There has been therefore no undue delay. Objection is taken that it is contrary to the practice of this Court to entertain an application in revision when a remedy by way of regular suit is open to the applicant. We agree with this. Ordinarily this practice should be followed, but each case must be judged upon its own peculiar circumstances. In the present case it is quite clear that Rim Narain had obtained an order entirely in his favour on 4th August 1913. It was an order passed after consideration of the merits, though no doubt it was ex parte in so far as the other side had not appeared. In the circumstances of the present case we think that we ought to entertain the application in revision. It is quite clear that, the lower Court's order, which the applicant seeks to revise, is quite wrong. The Court ought to have gone into the question raised by the application and ought to have pissed a proper decision thereon instead of summarily rejecting it. We therefore allow this application, set aside the Court's order and remand the case to that Court with orders to readmit the application on its original number and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. Costs of this application will be costs in the case and will abide the result.