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