H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 13-1-1994 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Kolar. ( 2 ) BY the order dated 15-1-1994, the learned Munsiff has, after hearing the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor's counsel, set aside the attachment order and refused the prayer of the decree-holder for attachment of land Sy. Nos. 98/1, 98/2, 115/3, 127/3 of Batrahalli Village. The learned Munsiff has further observed that, it is left open to the decree-holder to prove satisfactorily that such properties are joint family properties and j. Dr. has got undivided definite interest or to take any other modes of realisation. The decree-holder had moved the application for attachment, alleging that the said properties stood in the name of Nanjappa, father of J. Dr. , were joint family properties and the J. Dr. has got 1/6th share and as such, it was prayed that the said properties be attached. On notice being issued to the J. Dr. the J. Dr. put in appearance and filed objections alleging that the application for attachment was not maintainable either in law or on facts. The J. Dr. alleged that he had no property and that, in the properties mentioned above, he had no share, instead the said properties belong to his father viz. , Nanjappa. The learned Munsiff framed an issue whether the decree-holder has furnished sufficient grounds to believe that the properties mentioned by him as joint family properties and in which the J. Dr. has got 1/6th share or interest and whether the said properties are liable to be attached to the extent of 1/6th share. The learned Munsiff, after considering the matter in detail, took the view and recorded the finding that, even if the above-mentioned lands or properties are recorded in the name of Nanjappa, father of J. Dr. but there is no material placed on record to show or to establish that the said properties were purchased by Nanjappa out of the joint family funds or from the income of the joint family or that the J. Dr. had contributed anything in the acquisition of those properties. but there is no material placed on record to show or to establish that the said properties were purchased by Nanjappa out of the joint family funds or from the income of the joint family or that the J. Dr. had contributed anything in the acquisition of those properties. So, he held that there is no material evidence on record nor has anyone adduced orally or in the form of documents by the decree-holder and as such those properties belong to Nanjappa and the properties are all his self-acquired properties. Having recorded the above findings that the properties, which the applicants sought to be attached have not been proved to be the joint family properties of Nanjappa, there was no reason t attach those properties in execution of the decree against th respondent judgment debtor. Having recorded these findings the learned Munsiff has rejected the application of th decree-holder for attachment of the property bearing Nos. 98/1 98/2,115/3,127/3 of Batrahalli village. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the above-mentioned order date13-1-1994, the decree-holder has come up before this Court by filing this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. The powers of this Court are circumscribed by the provisions of law and in the matters relating to civil proceedings, the revisional powers are circumscribed by the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:"section 115. Revision. The powers of this Court are circumscribed by the provisions of law and in the matters relating to civil proceedings, the revisional powers are circumscribed by the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:"section 115. Revision. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto. " ( 4 ) UNDER Section 115, the revisional powers of this Court can be exercised only if the following conditions are established:" (A) that the order impugned amounts to be a case decided. (b) that no appeal lies from that very order to this court. (c) that the order impugned suffers from the jurisdictional error i. e. , exercise of jurisdiction not vested, or illegal refusal or failure to exercise the same in cases where it is shown that the court has, in exercise of its jurisdiction, acted illegally or with material irregularity. (b) that no appeal lies from that very order to this court. (c) that the order impugned suffers from the jurisdictional error i. e. , exercise of jurisdiction not vested, or illegal refusal or failure to exercise the same in cases where it is shown that the court has, in exercise of its jurisdiction, acted illegally or with material irregularity. " ( 5 ) THERE may be another set of cases where the question of jurisdictional fact or a question of law touching jurisdiction is wrongly decided and the lower court assumes the jurisdiction illegally on the basis thereto, or on the basis erroneous decision thereof refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested, such as question of limitation or res judicata or any question like that. Until and unless the first three conditions are established that is the order amounts to be a case decided, that the order impugned cannot be challenged by way of appeal and that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error and are shown to exist, there is no question of going into the question whether order is likely to cause substantial injury or not. This is the view expressed by the privy council and the Supreme Court. The leading decisions on this point may be referred to as (1) Joy Chand Lal Babu v kamalaksha Chaudhury and Others, (2) N. S. Venkatagiri ayyangar and Another v The Hindu Religious Endowments board, Madras and (3) Choube Jagdish Prasad and Another v ganga Prasad Chaturvedi. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the learned Munsiff has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the decree-holder has not produced any material to show that the properties which are sought to be attached are joint family properties and the judgment-debtor has got 1/6th share therein. This is a pure and simple finding of fact recorded by the trial court. The decree-holder appeared before this Court and argued personally, but he has failed to show that any evidence had been produced before the learned Munsiff, which may prove that the land recorded in the name of Nanjappa, the father of judgment-debtor, was the joint family property. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the court is limited to examine whether the trial court, while passing the order impugned, has committed any jurisdictional error, as mentioned above. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the court is limited to examine whether the trial court, while passing the order impugned, has committed any jurisdictional error, as mentioned above. No jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the petitioner. The case is one concluded by pure finding of fact. Even if the finding of fact has been recorded wrongly or erroneously, that does not empower this court to interfere with the said order. The learned Munsiff has kept it open of the judgment-debtor to apply for execution of the decree afresh by other modes and therefore, it cannot be said that the decree-holder will be suffering irrepairable loss or injury from rejection of attachment of the property bearing Nos. 98/1, 98/2, 115/3, 127/3. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in the revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .