Judgment :- (Revision is preferred against the order in E.A.No.587 of 1999 in E.P.No.577 of 1998 in O.S.No.4209 of 1983 dated 22.2.2000 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.) The above revision is filed as against the order in E.A.No.587 of 1999 in E.P.No.577 of 1998 in O.S.No.4209 of 1983 dated 22.2.2000 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. In the execution proceedings, a defence was raised by the petitioners to the effect that the application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 clause (2) C.P.C was not signed and verified by the party. The Court below, without considering the said aspect, has chosen to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners have raised the said objection which is nothing but purely of technical nature, against which the above revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision in Potipireddi Sanyasamma vs. Chalamuri Swami Naidu and Others (1944 II MLJ 224). A perusal of the said judgment discloses that the application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 clause (2) C.P.C ought to have been signed and verified by the party. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the said requirements have not been complied with. Under the said circumstances, the Court below ought not to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein without rendering a finding in this regard. 4. Even though the petitioner has made out a case, it is now reported that during the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been settled and the principal amount borrowed by the petitioner was repaid to the bank in satisfaction of the entire decree. Under the said circumstances, the above revision petition is dismissed. No costs.