Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 20.9.011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore, in E.A.No.9 of 2010 in E.P.No.8 of 2005 in O.S.No.13 of 2003, this revision petition has been filed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad stroke could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The revision petitioner herein, as judgment debtor, in the E.P., filed the application under Order XXI Rule 90 of C.P.C. to get the auction sale set aside. After hearing both sides, the Fast Track Court Judge concerned dismissed the said application. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed. 4. At the hearing, when I raised the query as to how the revision would lie when Order XLIII Rule 1(j) of CPC contemplates appeal, the learned counsel could have no plausible reply. 5. I would like to refer to OrderXLIII Rule 1(j) of C.P.C., which is extracted hereunder: "O.XLIII(1). Appeals from orders – An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- (a) . . . (b) . . . . . . . . . . (j) an order under Rule 72 Rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale." 6. As such, the registry, without concentrating on the aforesaid provision simply numbered the above revision. In fact, the revision petitioner should have filed it as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) of C.P.C., but that was not done so. Wherefore, the registry shall convert this civil revision petition into civil miscellaneous appeal, subject to verification as to whether there was any delay in filing, and if so, necessary application should be filed by the petitioner to get the delay condoned. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.