ORDER: Aggrieved by order of Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam, dated 8.6.2001, made in I.A.No.8 of 1999 in O.S.No.308 of 1998, the petitioner third party has filed the above revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court. 2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8 of 1999 in O.S.No.308 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Periyakulam under O.38, Rules 8 and 10 read with O.21, Rule 58, C.P.C. praying for adjudication of his claim and releasing the Schedule property from attachment. The said application was resisted by the respondents. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge, after holding that there is no acceptable material to show that the suit property belongs to the petitioner by way of settlement from Pattabi Chettiar, dismissed his claim petition; hence the present revision. 3. Coming to the merits of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, it is the claim of the petitioner that the scheduled property was gifted to him by Pattabi Chettiar on 11.9.1998. The gift deed was accepted by Nagarajan on behalf of his minor son Sathish Babu. Before the Court below, the claimant’s father was examined as P.W.1 and a sale document in favour of the said Pattabi Chettiar was marked as Ex.P-1, the settlement deed executed by the Pattabi Chettiar in favour of the minor petitioner as Ex.P-2, kist receipts and for payment of electricity charges as Exs.P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. The first respondent therein/plaintiff was examined as R.W.1. According to him, the suit property originally belongs to Anandan Chettiar and his 3 sons. There was a partition between Pattabi Chettiar and his proposed. In the light of the said contentions and the materials, the the learned Subordinate Judge carefully perused the same and found that the door No. and other particulars fond in Ex.P-1 do not tally with the property attached in the aid proceedings. Further, Ex.P-2 Settlement deed is dated 11.9.1998 and there is no evidence to show that at the relevant time Pattabi Chettiar was in enjoyment of the property. The learned Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that there is no material to show that how Pattabi Chettiar has got the said property, more particularly, by way of self acquisition. The learned Judge has also observed that kist receipts, payment of electricity charges, namely, Exs.P-3, P-4, and P-5 respectively are documents brought after the order of attachment made in I.A.No.496 of 1998. The learned Judge has also observed that kist receipts, payment of electricity charges, namely, Exs.P-3, P-4, and P-5 respectively are documents brought after the order of attachment made in I.A.No.496 of 1998. Finally, after holding that on the date of Ex.P-2, there is no evidence to show that the property in question was enjoyed by Pattabi Chettiar as his self acquired property, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the learned Subordinate Judge has arrived at a factual conclusion based on oral and documentary evidence, in the absence of any contra material, I am of the view that the same cannot be interfered with in this revision. 4. Apart from the above factual aspect, learned counsel for the first respondent has also raised an objection regarding maintainability of the revision. According to him, inasmuch as the petitioner/third party filed a claim petition under O.38, Rules 8 and 10 read with O.21, Rule 58, C.P.C., as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of O.21, C.P.C., the petitioner has to file an appeal before the appropriate Court and not a revision before this Court. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 says that where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this Rule (Rule 58), the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise and as if it were a decree. The provisions referred to in the claim petition have not been disputed. In such a circumstance, in the light of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 58 O.21, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered by way of revision filed under Sec.115, C.P.C. Though learned counsel for the first respondent cited several decisions of various High Courts with reference to the said aspect, that proper remedy is to file an appeal before the appropriate Court against the order under challenge, it is relevant to refer two decisions of this Court, namely, (i) in Vasanthi, Mrs. v. Karuppanna Gounder, (1988)2 L.W. 45; and (ii) in Alamelu Ammal v. Chinnasamy Reddiar, (1989)1 L.W. 131 . v. Karuppanna Gounder, (1988)2 L.W. 45; and (ii) in Alamelu Ammal v. Chinnasamy Reddiar, (1989)1 L.W. 131 . While considering the similar order that is passed in a claim petition by a third party, K.M. Natarajan, J., in the first decision had held that on a careful analysis of the relevant provisions of the definition of ‘decree’ in Sec.2(2)(a), Sec.104(1)(i) read with O.21, Rule 58(4), C.P.C. and the ratio laid down in various decisions, no regular appeal is contemplated as provided under Sec.96, C.P.C. but a civil miscellaneous appeal alone is contemplated. In the provisions stated in the claim petition in the present case, I am in agreement with the said conclusion and the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil miscellaneous appeal before the appropriate Court. 5. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.