JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is. a defendants application in revision arising out of a suit u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act. 2. The plaintiffs-opposite parties' case was that they were in possession of the house in dispute within six months of the suit and that they were unlawfully dispossessed by the defendant applicant Defendants 4 and 5 Contested the suit on the ground that they were in possession of the house from before six months. Later on they also raised the plea that the valuation, of the property involved in the suit was over RS. 2000 and that the court of the Munsif before which the suit was, pending and whose jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 8,000 was not competent, to try the suit. The court below found that the suit was cognizable by that court because the value of the property in dispute was less than Rs. 2,000. It further found that the plaintiffs were is possession of the house within six months and that they were unlawfully dispossessed by the defendants. It therefore, decreed the suit, against this decree the defendant has come up in revision to this Court. 3. When the case came, up before me on the last occasion, it was (sic) that the court below had no jurisdiction to outer-tain the suit as the value of the property was more than Rs. 2,000. I considered that the court had committed an material irregularity in the decision of the point relating to the valuation of the property and, therefore, asked for a fresh finding from that court as to the value of the property in dispute. The court below has now rent its finding to the effect that the value of the property is Rs. 2960. On behalf of the opposite parties objections have been filed to this finding. On their be half several Other points, not raised before me at the first hearing; have been urged. It has been contended that the question of under valuation or over-valuation of the suit cannot be gone into in an appeal, or revision without proof that the merits of the case have been effected by the institution of the suit in a wrong court. Reliance has been placed upon Section 11 of the Suits valuation Act and upon the cases of Wahid Ullah v Kanhaga Lal ILR. 25 All. Reliance has been placed upon Section 11 of the Suits valuation Act and upon the cases of Wahid Ullah v Kanhaga Lal ILR. 25 All. 174 (F. B.) Dalip Singh v. Kundan Singh 12 A.L.J. 21 and Mool Chand Moti Lal Vs. Ram Kishan and Others 4. It has further urged that this Court will not interfere in revision if the applicant has another, remedy open to him and that in this particular case the defendant applicant has already availed herself of that remedy, by instituting a regular suit in the court below. It is conceded before me that the applicant has instituted a pauper suit in the court below in respect of the property in dispute. 5. The decision u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act is not final. A party against whom the decision is given has a remedy by way of a regular suit. 6. Normally, this Court does not interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC when the applicant has another remedy available to him. But this is not an inflexible rule. In fit cases this Court has exercised its revisions jurisdiction in connection with cases u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act vide Badrul Zaman v. Haji Faiz Ullah Abdullah, 1938 A. W.R. (H. C) 588 =A.L.J. 864 7. But when the applicant in revision has already abaled himself of that other remedy, this. Court will refuse to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and will leave the parties to have their rights determined by means of that other remedy. A decision by this Court in revision in a case arising out of proceedings u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act will itself not determine the rights of the parties finally and will be subjects the decision of the civil court in a regular suit. Therefore, when a party has already taken his dispute to the civil court in a regular suit, it will be futile for this Court to make a decision which will admittedly be subject to the decision in the regular suit. On this ground alone I think I should refuse to interfere with the decision of the court below. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to give any opinion on the other questions involved in the case. 8. On this ground alone I think I should refuse to interfere with the decision of the court below. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to give any opinion on the other questions involved in the case. 8. I, therefore, dismiss this application in revision, but, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.