Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee in an unnumbered E.A. of 2001 in E.P.No.89 of 1997 in O.S.No.595 of 1989 by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners appear to have filed the said unnumbered E.A. under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC as if it is a claim petition and that the same hag been returned by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee by saying that how such a petition is maintainable in respect of charged properties and when there is no attachment by Court by giving ten days time for compliance. 3. Aggrieved against such return, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. The fact remains that first item in lot 1 and second item in lot 2 of the charge decree have been brought for Court auction and those properties have bean purchased by one V .Rajendran, a third party for a total sum of Rs.74,700 and he has also deposited the entire amount into Court and the sale has also been confirmed. Moreover, while moving for stay of the said execution proceedings by the revision petitioners, there was also conditional order passed by this Court for deposit of amounts to show the bona fide of the revision petitioners in prosecuting the revision petition, but, no amount has been deposited by the petitioners as ordered by this Court. More than all, I am to point out that this revision petition, as such, filed against the return endorsement, cannot be maintained inasmuch as there is no judicial order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee. Following that in the above said circumstances of the case, this revision petition cannot have merits on facts or on legal grounds. 5. Accordingly, this civil revision petitioner deserves to be dismissed and consequently, it is dismissed. No costs. The registry is directed to send back the records to the Principal District Munsif, Gingee within two weeks.