JUDGMENT Piggot, J.
1. The question raised by this application is one of jurisdiction. The Court below was asked to consider this point and remarked that the town of Hathras, where the parties reside and where the property in suit is situated, is now, and was on the date of the order under consideration, within the jurisdiction of that Court as Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. If this statement is correct, it is conclusive of the question raised by the application for revision. There is nothing to show that the statement is not correct, and so far as one can gather from such orders as have been issued by this Court, the intention of the Court always was that the work of the Aligarh district should go to the Subordinate Judge and the work of the two districts in the judgeship, namely, Etah and Bulandshahar, to the Additional Subordinate Judge. We do not think any case is made out for interference. We dismiss this application.
Walsh, J.
2. I agree. I only want to add a word or two in consequence of the argument addressed to us. It seems to me that it is the duty of anybody when applying in revision, particularly when relying upon want of jurisdiction, to provide himself first with the materials which prove the allegation on which he relies, and to lay them before the Court either by affidavit if they consist of statements which do not prove themselves, or by production of the record if they consist of statements which are proved by the record.
3. In this particular case the Judge whose jurisdiction was attacked at the hearing went out of his way to answer the question and to give his reasons, and I cannot believe that in the town of Aligarh, if it be the fact that there is no order justifying this particular Subordinate Judge exercising jurisdiction over parties living in Hathras, there is no one who could not ascertain that fact by a very simple enquiry between May 1918 and March 1919. In fact I should think there is hardly' a member of the legal profession who could not discover this, if he pleased, in the course of an afternoon. If we were to agree with the suggestion that the Judge is called upon to prove to the parties the foundation of his own jurisdiction, and because this particular Judge bad not placed anything on the record to justify his opinion, that, therefore, this order was bad, it is obvious that every defeated party who has lost his case before this particular Judge would come up in revision to have his order quashed.