This is an application in revi­sion on behalf of the petitioner Birendra Chan­dra Deb against the order of Sub-Judge, Tripura, dated 7-9-64 by which the Claim Case of the petitioner was dismissed. (2) The /facts which have led up to this revision petition lie in a short compass and may be briefly narrated. On 8th July, 1964 Shri Birendra Chandra Deb filed an applica­tion under Or. 21 R. 58 C.P.C. and upon that the Claim Case No. 29 of 1964 was started. The contention of the petitioner was that the lands of Jote No. 8 covering an area of 7 kanis 10 gandas described in the first schedule of the execution petition belongs to the petitioner and he is in possession of the same. It was also alleged that the lands of jote No. 38 measur­ing 2 kanis described in the 2nd schedule of the execution petition were purchased jointly by. the petitioner and pro forma opposite op­posite party No. 2 Makhan Chandra Deb therefore the entire property cannot be sold in execution of the decree. The petitioner further alleged that the property shown in the 3rd schedule of the execution petition was pur­chased by the petitioner himself and it has been in his possession, therefore it cannot be sold in the execution proceeding. It was also alleged that the boundaries of the lands of first schedule shown in the execution petition attract the 2 kanis of Lands of jote No. 11, The above-mentioned land belongs to the petitioner so it cannot be sold in execution. (3) The opposite party decree-holder fil­ed an objection petition alleging that the peti­tion is barred by res judicata and also by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. It has also been stated that the petitioner filled claim Case No. 32 of 1962 in the original suit which was dismissed for default on 26-11-62 A. D. so according to the provisions of Or. 21 R. 63 C.P.C. the petitioner's application Is not entertainable at this stage. It was further alleged that the petitioner is the benamidar of the judgment-debtor and he does not possess the properties, therefore the petitioner's claim is liable to be rejected. (4) Thereafter the learned Sub-Judge heard the lawyers and dismissed the peti­tioner's Claims Case No. 32 of 1962. (5) Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Sub-Judge the petitioner has come to this Court in revision. (4) Thereafter the learned Sub-Judge heard the lawyers and dismissed the peti­tioner's Claims Case No. 32 of 1962. (5) Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Sub-Judge the petitioner has come to this Court in revision. (6) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Subordinate Judge without entering into the investigation of the facts alleged by the petitioner held that the petitioner's claims case cannot be entertained in view of the fact that, his claims petition was previously rejected on 26-11-62 in the original suit which was in connection with the same property of this Execution Case. This, finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, is erroneous and hence it should be set aside. There is no substance in this Contention. From the perusal of the record and the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge it is dealt that he decided. (7) The learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that the previous case was dismis­sed for default without any investigation, there­fore, it does not come within the mischief of Or. 21 R. 63 C.P.C., and as such second appli­cation is-maintainable. But the learned Subor­dinate Judge failed to appreciate this point, and hence he came to an erroneous finding. The finding being palpably wrong should be set aside. This contention too is not tenable in view of the principles laid down in- the following 2 cases (1) Satindra Nath v. Shiva Prosad, 26 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1922 Cal 166) and (2) Jagjivan Dhondiram v. G,opal Vinayak AIR 1955 Bom 397 . In these cases, it was held that an order dismissing a claim for default is an order within the meaning of Or. 21, R. 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, and, sub­ject to the result of a regular suit, is conclu­sive. It is now well settled that even if an order dismissing the application is passed for default in the enquiry, such an order becomes conclu­sive, subject to the result of a suit under O. 21 R. 63 C.P.C. (8) I, therefore, find that this revision is without substance and hence it is dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 40/-. Revision dismissed.