Judgment :- 1. The revision petition is not maintainable under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner suffered an ex parte decree, passed by the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam on 15.2.1990 in O.S.No. 1317 of 1989. The petitioner filed LA.No. 104 of 1990 to set aside the said decree. An order was passed in that application on 2.9.1991, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.100 by way of costs to the respondent, on or before 30.8.1991, as condition. It was made clear that the petition would stand dismissed if the cost was not paid. On. 2-9-1991, the court passed an order dismissing the petition, recording the fact that the cost was not paid. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 289 of 1992 for setting aside that order and restore the I.A.No. 104 of 1990. That was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that remedy of the petitioner was only to file an appeal. That order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court, in C.R.P.No. 1282 of 1993, and detailed arguments were advanced before the learned Judge. The revision petition was dismissed on 8.10.1993. The learned Judge has pointed out that the petitioner did not even given any reason for non-payment of costs within the time granted by the court below. The learned Judge has referred to the various rulings cited on behalf of the petitioner and distinguished the same. The learned Judge has found that there was no merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same. Therefore, when the execution proceedings are going on, the petitioner has chosen to file this revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the correctness of the decree dated 15.2.1990, passed in the suit. 3. The Registry has returned the same. calling upon the counsel to state how the revision petition is maintainable. The counsel has made an endorsement that the powers of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India are very wide and whenever there is a grave irregularity of procedure or violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can interfere under Art. 227 Hence, the office has posted this matter for orders as to maintainability. 4. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the grounds of revision are not in proper form at all. Every ground is argumentative and narrative in nature. 4. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the grounds of revision are not in proper form at all. Every ground is argumentative and narrative in nature. The fundamental rule relating to memorandum of grounds that it should be concise and should not be argumentative or narrative has been completely ignored. 5. Yet, have heard the counsel on the question of maintainability. Learned counsel submits that grave injustice had been done in this case as the advocate for the petitioner failed to pay the costs of Rs.100, within the time granted by the court. According to learned counsel the proper procedure has not been followed in this case by the trial court when it passed the decree and judgment in the suit. The contentions are without any merit. As pointed out already, the revision petition filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1282 of 1993 was dismissed as early as on 8.10.1993. Thereafter the decree had become final. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same by way of revision under Art.227 at this stage. In fact, the matter had come before me earlier in the course of execution proceedings in C.R.P.No. 3739 of 1994. I have dismissed the same by order dated 23.12.1994, holding that the decree had become final and there was no ground for granting stay of execution. 6. In such circumstances the revision petition is not maintainable. However, the revision petition has to be numbered as the non-maintainability is not on the ground of want of jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the Registry is directed to number the revision. In the result, C.R.P.is rejected. Connected C.M.P. No. 957 of 1996 is also dismissed.