Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the unnumbered E.A.--/2012 in E.A.No.240 of 2012 in E.P.No.19 of 2008 in O.S.No.147 of 2004. 2. Pursuant to the decree dated 28/1/2005 in O.S.No.147 of 2004, the decree holder filed E.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram for sale. The properties attached already were brought to sale and the sale was confirmed on 14/9/2012 and sale certificate also was issued on the same date. 3. The auction purchaser filed E.A.No.240 of 2011 for delivery of the suit property. While so, the judgment debtor had filed the unnumbered E.A.No.--- of 2012 in E.A.No.240 of 2011 to permit the petitioner to deposit Rs.82,242/- with non-judicial stamp duty of Rs.14,100/- with pounding change of Rs.5,310/- and cancel the order passed in E.A.No.240 of 2011. Earlier, E.A.No.111 of 2012 filed by the judgment debtor for stay of further proceedings was dismissed on 14/9/2012. The E.A to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount was returned by the District Munsif, Ambasamudram stating that the same was filed beyond 60 days from the date of sale and hence barred by limitation. Challenging the said order, the above revision is filed. As stated above, already the sale certificate is issued. 4. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that challenging the decree, the Second Appeal No.628 of 2013 was filed with the delay. While allowing the condone delay petition in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in S.A.SR (MD) No.2477 of 2012, this Court had passed the following order:- “Accordingly, following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned supra, in order to meet the ends of justice, the petition for condonation of delay is allowed on condition the petitioner deposits the entire decreetal amount together with the poundage apart from Rs.25,000/- towards interest/compensation payable to the third party purchaser to the credit of O.S.No.147 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. In compliance, the petitioner had already deposited the amount. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner had made the following endorsement. “Since the revision petitioner has deposited the entire sale amount pursuant to direction by this Honourable Court dated 11/7/2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in S.A.SR No.2477 of 2012, the present C.R.P is infructuous. In compliance, the petitioner had already deposited the amount. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner had made the following endorsement. “Since the revision petitioner has deposited the entire sale amount pursuant to direction by this Honourable Court dated 11/7/2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in S.A.SR No.2477 of 2012, the present C.R.P is infructuous. The petitioner is reserving his right to challenge the sale in the event of allowing of the Second Appeal. 6. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.