ORDER Abdur Rahman, J. 1. A preliminary objection has been raised that this revision is not competent. The petitioner made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. This has been refused by the lower Court on the ground that he has no locus standi to make the application. The order will show that the Court has not passed any order setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale and it is these orders alone which are appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Pro. Code, If the lower Courts action, as Oldfield J. said in Sundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 157 consisted in a refusal to deal with the judgment-debtors petition, a non-exercise of their jurisdiction must be held to be revisable since the decision was not a conclusion of law or fact but one in which the question of jurisdiction was involved. I would therefore overrule the preliminary objection. 2. The lower Court will report whether the entire property was sold in these proceedings or whether the melwaram interest alone was sold. The papers relating to proclamation and the order passed for sale may be sent along with the report. Time, one month. ORDER 3. The only question to decide in this revision is whether the petitioner had a locus standi to present an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. There was a little doubt at one time as to what was actually sold in the execution of the decree and I called for a report on that point. The learned District Judge has reported that the melwaram interest alone was sold and the proclamation of sale has also been sent which shows the same. There is no doubt on that point now and this is conceded by the petitioners learned counsel. The only question then is whether the petitioner who was a kudivaramdar could make an application objecting to the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. If his interests are those of a kudivaramdar, they cannot be, within the language of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., said to have been in any way affected by the sale of the melwaram interest. There is an observation in Adenna v. Chinna Ramayya A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1191 which confirms me in my opinion. There is an observation in Adenna v. Chinna Ramayya A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1191 which confirms me in my opinion. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs which will be shared by the decree-holder and the auction purchaser.