The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of the revision petition under Order 43 Rule i(ja) CPC and the application of the prescribed time limit for filing under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The office is directed to number the Civil Revision Petition.

2. Heard both sides.

3. At the outset, it is mentioned that the revision petitioner/defendant has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 30.07.2009 passed in E.A.No.68 of 2009 in E.P.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.402 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. The office of the Registry has entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition projected by the Revision petitioner/Defendant before this Court, though the office has not spelt out in its note expressly as to why the revision petition is not maintainable in law.

5. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant has made the following endorsement in regard to the maintainability of CRP SR raised by the office, which runs as follows:

"EP 142/2008 was filed under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC the order or delivery was passed in EP 142 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, exparte. The order of delivery dated 26.02.2009 passed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC is not an appealable order. The present EA.68 of 2009 was filed under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC to set aside the exparte order dated 26.02.2009 in E.P.142 of 2008 directing delivery of the suit property. The order passed in EA.68 of 2009 is only a Revisable order under Order 43 Rule i(ja) CPC. Because, under the said Rule an appeal is provided only against appealable orders. Since, the order of delivery dated 26.02.2009 passed under Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC in EP.142 of 2008 is not an appealable order, only a revision is maintainable under section 115 CPC.

Hence, the above CRP is maintainable."

6. Hence the Civil Revision Petition in SR.No.87430 of 2009 has been posted before this Court under the caption "maintainability".

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant urges before this Court that as against the order passed in E.A.No.68 of 2009 in E.P.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.402 of 2007 dated 30.07.2009, only the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable before this Court and not an appeal and in support of his contention he invites the attention of this Court to Order 43 Rule i(ja) which runs thus

"An order rejecting an application made under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 105 of that order is appealable."

8. Further according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the order passed in E.P.No.142 of 2008 on 26.02.2009 to the effect that the respondents served, the respondents called absent and set exparte delivery by 09.04.2009 has been passed under Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC which is not a appealable order and therefore only the Civil Revision Petition alone is competent before this Court. After going through the Order 43 Rule i(ja) provision of Civil Procedure Code and also after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court finds substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision alone is competent in the present case as against the order passed in E.A.No.68 of 2009 and as such it is held that the present revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is perfectly maintainable and resultantly, the doubt of the office of Registry as to maintainability of the revision petition is not a valid and a correct one.

9. Coming to the main Civil Revision Petition, the main plank of attack made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition is that the order passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.68 of 2009 dated 30.07.2009 in E.P.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.402 of 2007 is perse illegal because of the fact that the executing Court has not taken note of the facts and circumstanc