ORDER : The Financier namely, Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., a third party, is the revision petitioner. 2. This revision arose in the following ways: Third respondent was Manager of NAC Jewellers/second respondent. R-2 believed him very much. But, he used to steal jewels like a rat eating rice little by little. He pledged the stolen jewels with the revision petitioner, namely, Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Limited. One day the cat came out of the bag. Missing of the jewels came to light. Suddenly, third respondent disappeared. Consequently, second respondent appeared before the Police/first respondent and lodged a complaint. A case in Crime No.356 of 2011 has been registered. 3. R-3 was caught. Based on his confessional statement, huge items of jewels were seized from the revision petitioner by the jewellers. They were produced before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 4. Under Section 451 Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.No.1460 of 2011, the revision petitioner sought for return of the jewels, while the second respondent under Section 451 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.881 of 2011 sought for the jewels. The police have no objection to give interim custody of the jewels to the second respondent. 5. Confused with the rival claims, the learned Magistrate pursued a safe route, namely, dismissed both the petitions. 6. In the circumstances, second respondent filed Crl.RC No.592 of 2011 in this Court. On 19.4.2011, a learned Judge of this Court passed a detailed order, directing the Magistrate to return the jewels to the second respondent imposing several conditions. Accordingly the learned Magistrate gave the jewels to the second respondent. 7. Subsequently, Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Limited, directed the present revision petition against the dismissal of its property return petition passed on 30.3.2011. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that let the second respondent may be the owner of the jewels, but the revision petitioner had parted with huge money and second respondent's ex-employee duped them, they are the sufferer. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for R-2 would submit that on 19.4.2011 this Court passed a detailed order of return of the jewels to the second respondent prescribing several conditions. All the conditions were complied with. The interim custody of the jewels were given to R-2. After their revision, the present revision has been filed. Practically, this revision has become infructuous. 10. All the conditions were complied with. The interim custody of the jewels were given to R-2. After their revision, the present revision has been filed. Practically, this revision has become infructuous. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 11. Now as per the orders of this Court dated 19.4.2011, the interim custody of the case-property has been entrusted to. The said order of a learned single Judge of this Court cannot be faulted by another single Judge of this Court. We are not prepared to tinker the order dated 19.4.2011. 12. In the circumstances, this Revision fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.