JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - As there was some doubt whether the present appeal is competent, there is an alternative petition in revision. The point at issue is whether an application by the Petitioners for the stay of certain proceedings under the pro-visions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenants Act should be allowed. That question can be disposed of either in appeal or in revision. In order to deal with the case it is necessary to set out certain facts. The Plaintiffs Respondents obtained an ejectment decree against one N.C. Sinha. They took out execution proceedings against him. In the course of these proceedings they made an application under Or. 21, r. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, complaining of an obstruction by the present Appellants. The Appellants filed a counter-petition. But on the day fixed for dealing with the matter, they did not turn up. The Munsif then made an order in favour of the decree-holders under Or. 21, r. 98. It appears to have been a routine order: but the only possible interpretation of it is that he was satisfied that the Petitioners were acting at the instigation of the judgment-debtor. The Petitioners then, as they were entitled to do, instituted a suit under the provisions of Or. 21, r. 103 on the 7th of February, 1940: they obtained an order of injunction on the decree-holders from taking any further proceedings. 2. On the 31st August, 1940, the Munsif recorded an order to the effect that inasmuch as the injunction was withdrawn, he would proceed with the execution case. A writ for delivery of possession was accordingly issued on the 3rd of September, 1940. The writ could not be executed inasmuch as the peon was resisted or, at any rate, it was alleged that he was obstructed by the present Appellants. Then on the 16th of September, 1940, the present Appellants filed a petition under Act IX of 1940 for staying all further proceedings. This application was rejected and an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge rejected it as incompetent. 3. The learned Judge held that the appeal was incompetent because of the decision of my learned brother Mitter in the case of Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Narendra Nath Samanta 45 C.W.N. 22 (1940). That case was concerned with an application made in the course of a suit. The District Judge rejected it as incompetent. 3. The learned Judge held that the appeal was incompetent because of the decision of my learned brother Mitter in the case of Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Narendra Nath Samanta 45 C.W.N. 22 (1940). That case was concerned with an application made in the course of a suit. Such applications are extremely frequent and of course it could not be suggested that in such a case there is an appeal. The present application was, however, made in the course of execution proceedings. Mr. Choudhury concedes that in a case of this nature under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there would be an appeal. 4. The present Appellants, however, are not the judgment-debtors. Had they been the judgment-debtors, their suit under r. 103 would have been incompetent. As their application was not made under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge was right when he actually held that no appeal lies. 5. It is, therefore, to be considered whether I should interfere in revision. The application was of course entirely misconceived. No decree was obtained against the Petitioners at all. They, however, instituted a suit for a declaration that they are tenants of the decree-holders and on the strength of that suit they obtained an injunction. If the suit was decreed in their favour, the decree-holders' application for further proceedings would automatically fail and no application under the provisions of this Act would be necessary. In such a case the application would not only be outside the scope of the Act, but redundant as well. 6. Mr. Choudhury's instructions are that the suit has been dismissed on a finding that the Petitioners are trespassers Mr. Roy's clients have not even bothered to inform him what the result of the suit is. However, on the 31st of August, 1940, the Munsif recorded the following order: Title Suit No. 38 of 1940, has been disposed of and the order of injunction has been vacated. 7. It is quite obvious that, if the suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioners, the injunction could not be vacated. The position will therefore be that if the suit has been dismissed, it is impossible to contend that the Petitioners are non-agricultural tenants within the meaning of the Act. 8. The appeal is dismissed as incompetent without costs. 7. It is quite obvious that, if the suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioners, the injunction could not be vacated. The position will therefore be that if the suit has been dismissed, it is impossible to contend that the Petitioners are non-agricultural tenants within the meaning of the Act. 8. The appeal is dismissed as incompetent without costs. The alternative application is rejected. The Opposite Parties will get costs, hearing-fee, being assessed at one gold mohur.