ORDER : 1. This is revision against the order dated 14-5-51 of the Munsiff, Bhopal, in execution case No.88 of 1951, asking the applicants-obstructors to begin their evidence in proceedings under application of the decree-holder non-applicant, under O.21, R.97, Civil P.C. 2. In execution of his decree for possession of two blocks of shops against one Sardarmal, the decree-holder non-applicant took out a warrant for delivery of possession of the blocks, but at the time of the execution of the warrant, the judgment-debtor stated that he was not in possession of them, but one Tikamchand and Sardarmal were in possession of the blocks which were locked and further that he would get them vacated. The Court ordered that the locks be broken open, but the Nazir reported on 30-11-50 that the locks were reported to have been put up by the Bank of Bhopal. The same day Sardarmal Lalwani, the present applicant No.2 filed an application that he had rented the blocks from Tikamchand, the applicant No.1 and had stored his grain and the Bank of Bhopal had locked the blocks and therefore he cannot be asked to vacate them as he was in possession on his own account and in goal faith. The decree-holder-non-applicant, on 2-12-50, filed an application that Tikamchand and Sardarmal, the present applicants had thus obstructed the delivery of possession of the blocks. The case was ultimately fixed for evidence on 14-5-51 when after hearing the arguments, the learned Munsif ordered the obstructors, the present applicants, to adduce their evidence first. That order is now sought to be challenged. 3. It is urged that under O.21, R.97 of the Code, it is the decree-holder who has to prove that he was resisted or obstructed by the present applicants and under S.93 that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by these persons at the instigation of the judgment-debtor and as such, the burden lay on the decree-holder. On the other side, the decree-holder urges that it was for the applicants to prove that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by them claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on their own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor and reference is made to R.99 of O.21 of the Code. On the other side, the decree-holder urges that it was for the applicants to prove that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by them claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on their own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor and reference is made to R.99 of O.21 of the Code. It is also contended that no revision could lie against the order dated 14-5-51 which was not a final order, the final order itself being liable to be set aside only by a suit. 4. The first point for determination, therefore, is whether a revision lies. It must appear that the question of burden of proof is a question of law and a final order involving this question was liable to be revised if not appealable or if no appeal was tenable. In the case on hand, however, in my opinion, there is no final order passed on the application of the present applicants or of the decree-holder and as such, the order in which the Court asked the present applicants to begin their evidence, is not a judicial final order, but only a procedural order. The order could be final when the Court arrived at its decision on the basis of its procedural order in the matter of the serial order in which evidence was to be adduced. That being so, the mere direction of the Court to the applicants, to begin their evidence, not being a final order, was not liable to a revision. The contention that no revision lies against an order passed under R.98 or 99 of O.21, is generally correct. But under certain circumstances, the High Court may interfere with such order viz: where the lower Court did not investigate into the matter or rejected the application on misconstruction of the law or if there are illegalities or material errors in the proceedings of the Court. In Indubhushan Das v. Haricharan Mandal, 132 Ind Cas 31 (Cal), it has been held that "The High Court can, under proper circumstances use its powers of revision under S.116, Civil P.C., to correct errors of illegalities of subordinate Courts in proceedings under O.21, R.101." There is no invariable rule of the Court to refuse to make use of its revisional powers in a case where there is another legal remedy open to the applicant. It is a question to be decided, in the circumstances of each case, whether a Court will, in revision, go into the matter or relegate the party to a suit." 5. The next point for determination, viz., whether in the proceedings on hand, the burden of proof lay on the D.H. or on the non-applicants (applicants in this Court), does not arise in view of the finding that no revision can be entertained against the mere direction as found in the order dated 14-5-51. The revision petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the non-applicants in this Court. Pleaders' fees will be Rs.15 if certified, in time. Revision dismissed.