Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2011 passed in O.E.A.No.116 of 2011 in O.E.P.No.59 of 1999 in A.O.S.No.86 of 1983 by the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. 2. Heard Mr.G.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners are defendants. The respondent herein has filed two suits, viz., A.O.S.Nos.86 of 1983 and 319 of 1983. The suits ultimately came to be decided in Second Appeal No.2261 of 2003 in respect of A.O.S.No.86 of 1983 and Second Appeal No.1147 of 2004 in respect of A.O.S.No.319 of 1983. The revision petitioners have filed two review applications, viz. R.A.No.191 of 2011 insofar as S.A.No.2261 of 2003 and R.A.No.192 of 2001 in respect of S.A.No.1147 of 2004. In both the Second Appeals, the judgment was delivered on 2.8.2011. 4. Further, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, pending the review applications, the execution petitions filed by the respondent/plaintiff should be stayed. The revision petitioners have filed an application O.E.A.No.116 of 2011 in O.E.P.No.59 of 1999 in A.O.S.No.86 of 1983 which is relatable to S.A.No.2261 of 2003. 5. The learned Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi declined to stay the execution proceedings relying upon the Apex Courts decision in Madan Kumar Singh (Died) Through L.R. - v. - District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others reported in 2009(5)CTC 27 holding that mere filing of the Review Application is not a bar for the execution court to proceed with the matter. Since no stay has been granted in the review application, the execution proceeding cannot be stayed. Relevant paragraph of the Apex Courts decision reads as follows:- "20. It is trite to say that mere filing of a Petition, Appeal or Suit, would by itself not operate as stay until specific prayer in this regard is made and orders thereon are passed." 6. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the review application will have to be listed before some other Honble Judge and since the concerned Honble Judge is holding the Court in Madurai Bench, the Execution Court ought not to have proceed with the matter pending the review application. 7. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the review application will have to be listed before some other Honble Judge and since the concerned Honble Judge is holding the Court in Madurai Bench, the Execution Court ought not to have proceed with the matter pending the review application. 7. This Court is unable to accept the plea of the revision petitioners and grant any interlocutory order, to stay the execution proceedings, as mere filing of the review application cannot be a ground to stay the execution proceedings, moreso in a case of civil litigation decided by this Court in Second Appeal. The party who has got the benefit of the order should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of such order. The Court below is justified in rejecting the revision petitioners plea placing the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. If the revision petitioners succeed in the review application, the parties will be entitled to work out their rights thereon. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below for the above stated facts. 8. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.