K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-5-1988 passed by the 10th Addl. Judge to the Court of Dist. Judge, Indore in MJC. No. 8/84 registered on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 Babulal under O. 20, R. 11, C. P. C. read with S. 151 ibid. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this petition are these. The N. A. 1 Babulal instituted a partition suit (C. S. No. 7-A/ 88) in the Court of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Indore, against his three brothers including Badrilal (since deceased) in relation to house No. 170 Khajoori Bazar Indore and some movables. ( 3 ) A preliminary decree under O. 20, Rule 18 (2), C. P. C. was passed and in the final decree proceedings the house was put to sale under Section 3 of the Partition Act 1893 (for short 'the Partition Act' ). The respondent No. 1 Babulal and out of the petitioners who are L. Rs. of the deceased Badrilal, Arunkumar obtained Court's permission to bid. In the court sale the N. A. Babulal was declared purchaser and sale certificate was issued to him. ( 4 ) THE said Babulal filed an application purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 34 Civil Procedure Code and therein prayed for final decree. He also filed an application underorder 2l, Rule 93, C. P. C. read with S. 7 of the Partition Act wherein it was contended that as the petitioners are in occupation of a part of the house in question, the N. A. Babulal is entitled for warrant for delivery of possession as against them. Symbolical delivery of possession from the tenants Vijaikumar Sharma and Regal Industries was also prayed. ( 5 ) THE applications were opposed by the petitioners. According to them, till final decree is passed, the respondent Babulal is not entitled to possession-actual or symbolical or to the execution of any document. According to them, auction sale is illegal and they have right to challenge the same in appeal against the final decree which may be passed. In support of, the submission reliance was placed on the decision in Tarachand's case AIR 1982 Him Pra 75 and Madhava Menon's case, AIR 1952 Trav C. 428. According to them, auction sale is illegal and they have right to challenge the same in appeal against the final decree which may be passed. In support of, the submission reliance was placed on the decision in Tarachand's case AIR 1982 Him Pra 75 and Madhava Menon's case, AIR 1952 Trav C. 428. In the last mentioned decision it has been pointed out that it is from the nature of the decree that it has to be determined whether it is preliminary or final. ( 6 ) THE learned lower court by the impugned order allowed two applications filed by the respondent No. 1 Babulal. ( 7 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) SECTION 2 of the Partition Act, in the circumstances therein setforth, invest the Court with a discretion to direct public sale instead of division of the property involved in any partition suit. Section 3 deals with the procedure where a co-sharer undertakes to buy the property. Section 4 pertains to partition suit by transfer of share in a dwelling house. Section 7 of the Partition Act prescribes the procedure to be followed in case of sale, the provision in Section 7 (b) which governs the case in hand reads thus:- 7. Procedure to be followed in case of sales - Save as hereinbefore provided when any property is directed to be sold under this Act, the following procedure shall, so far as practicable be adopted namely: - (a ). (b) If the property be sold under a decree or order of any other Court, such procedure as the High Court may from time to time by rules prescribed in this behalf, and until such rules are made, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of sales in execution o decrees. ( 9 ) IT may be pointed out that under S. 8 of the Partition Act order for sale is, by fiction, a decree. The provision is in these terms:- any order for sale made by the Court under Ss. 2, 3 or 4 shall be deemed to be decree within the meaning of S. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The provision is in these terms:- any order for sale made by the Court under Ss. 2, 3 or 4 shall be deemed to be decree within the meaning of S. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 10 ) AS a result what has been stated above, it is clear that the auction sale in favour of the N. A. 1 is to be deemed to be under a decree and the position of the N. A. 1 is that of purchaser in execution of the decree. The law is that the title of the Court auction purchaser is complete on the confirmation of the sale under O. 21, R. 92, C. P. C. and under S. 65 ibid the property is deemed to have vested in him from the date of the auction sale. The order confirming sale amounts to judicial determination that none of the objections exist upon which validity of the sale could have been challenged. ( 11 ) THE petitioner did not apply under O. 21, R. 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the sale. In this connection to the decision in Noor Mohammad's case, 1981 Jab LJ (SN) 63 is apposite. Therein it has been pointed out that if the objection is not raised at proper stage by a party the same cannot be raised subsequently by virtue of the operation of the rule of constructive res judicata. The decision further points out that it is true that there can he no estoppel against statute but the rules do not imply that there can be no estoppel even against a plea of fact which has to be established before the application of the statute can be invoked. ( 12 ) IT may be stated that in the instant case, the petitioners had applied under O. 21, R. 106, C. P. C. read with O. 9, R. 7 ibid and S. 151, C. P. C. and that the application was dismissed by the lower Court and the revision preferred against that order was dismissed by the High Court vide C. R. 441 / 85 decided on 12-11-86. ( 13 ) IT is not in controversy that with the purchase in the Court sale referred to above, the N. A. 1 Baboolal is the owner of the entire house. ( 13 ) IT is not in controversy that with the purchase in the Court sale referred to above, the N. A. 1 Baboolal is the owner of the entire house. He has come to the Court as purchaser and not as Decree-holder and the decision in Tarachand's case (AIR 1982 Him Pra 75) (supra) is clearly distinguishable. He is entitled to invoke the provisions of O. 21, Rr. 95 and 96 of the C. P. C. for delivery of possession. ( 14 ) APART from what has been stated above, it has to be remembered that jurisdiction under S. 115, C. P. C. is confined to jurisdiction errors. After the M. P. Amendment of 1984 the jurisdiction thereunder is subject to two provisos. The second proviso applies to the case in hand and is in these terms:- provided further that the High Court or the District Judge shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order including any order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where- (i) the order, if no varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings or, (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. It may be pointed out that even where the conditions for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C. P. C. are fulfilled, it is still left in the Court's judicial discretion as to whether or not interference with the impugned order should be made. In the instant case, it cannot be held that the order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. ( 15 ) BEFORE parting with the case it may be observed that on the facts of the case there is no occasion for invoking the provision in O. 21, R. 34, C. P. C. which relates to decree for execution of document or for endorsement of negotiable instrument. ( 16 ) IN the ultimate analysis I find that no case for interference with the impugned order in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction, which is discretionary, had been made out. The revision petition is consequently dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/- if certified. Petition dismissed. .