Judgment :- The revision petitioners in both the revisions are the judgment-debtors/defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.737 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur. Both the revisions are filed against the orders of return of R.E.A.SR.Nos.3982 and 3981 of 2001 in R.E.A.Nos.24 of 2001 and 17 of 1997 respectively in R.E.P.No.19 of 1997 in O.S.No.737 of 1988, as per orders of return dated 12.12.2001. R.E.A.SR.No.3982 of 2001 is filed to set aside the order dated 20.4.2001 in R.E.A.No.24 of 2001 and R.E.A.SR.No.3981 of 2001 is filed to set aside the ex parte order dated 7.9.2000 in R.E.A.No.17 of 1997. 2. The plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal, wife of K.Ragothama Chettiar filed the suit O.S.No.737 of 1988 in the Sub Court, Salem on 6.10.1988 to recover a sum of Rs.23,562.50, due on the suit mortgage deed dated 4.9.1979 for Rs.13,000/- executed by the defendants 1 to 3, viz., Pavayammal and her son Balan alias Raman for himself and on behalf of his minor son Chandrsekaran. 3. The suit was resisted in the written statement filed by the second defendant adopted by the defendants 1 and 3 that it is only the plaintiff's husband Ragothama Chettiar, who paid Rs.6,000/- as advance to the defendants in respect of the premises leased to him and owned by the defendants and it is he, who made further sum and obtained the suit mortgage deed in the name of his wife. The defendants paid Rs.20,000/- by demand draft in July, 1987. Further, the rent was endorsed to be paid to him upto June, 1988 from N.T.C. at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. Thus, totally, the defendants paid Rs.28,670.22 and the plaintiff's husband also promised to return the mortgage deed, but he did not do so and filed the suit after causing lawyer notice which was suitably replied. Though the defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement as stated above, since they remained ex parte during trial, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 7.1.1992 and final decree was passed on 9.9.1992 since no payment was made pursuant to passing of preliminary decree. 4. The plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal originally filed E.P.No.54 of 1993 in the Sub Court, Salem, which was transferred to the Sub Court, Attur and renumbered as 17 of 1997, to recover the amount due pursuant to final decree and totally Rs.34,937.10 by sale of the mortgaged property. 4. The plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal originally filed E.P.No.54 of 1993 in the Sub Court, Salem, which was transferred to the Sub Court, Attur and renumbered as 17 of 1997, to recover the amount due pursuant to final decree and totally Rs.34,937.10 by sale of the mortgaged property. The E.P. was filed on 24.12.1992. The E.P. was opposed in the counter filed by the second respondent/second defendant and adopted by the respondents 1 and 3/defendants 1 and 3 that there was partition between Rangasamy Chettiar and Govindasamy Chettiar, the father of the second respondent/second defendant on 9.9.1950 and as per the registered partition deed dated 9.9.1950, the 'B' schedule property was allotted to Govindasamy Chettiar, which is brought for sale in the E.P. and further stating that Govindasamy Chettiar died leaving his wife, the first defendant Pavayammal, three daughters, viz., Muthiyammal, Baby alias Angammal and Rani and one son, viz., the second defendant Balan alias Raman. Rani filed O.S.No.142 of 1991 in Sub Court, Salem for partition. 5. Though the defence as stated in the written statement that the suit mortgage deed was executed as per the payment made and as stated in the written statement, no defence was taken in the E.P. 6. During the pendency of the E.P. Rajeswari Ammal died on 21.11.1995. The respondent Vidhya alias Divyalakshmi claiming that she is the adopted daughter of Ragothama Chettiar and the plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal as per the adoption deed dated 20.4.1993, filed E.A.No.433 of 1996 in the Sub Court, Salem, which was transferred to Sub Court, Attur and renumbered as 17 of 1997 to implead her as the legal representative of the decree-holder Rajeswari Ammal, the widow of Ragothama Chettiar. The petition was opposed by filing counter and further stating that the petition may be allowed without prejudice to the contention of the revision petitioners questioning the adoption deed of the respondent as the adopted daughter of Ragothama Chettiar and Rajeswari Ammal. Though the judgment-debtors/defendants filed counter as stated above, they remained absent. Hence, the petition E.A.No.17 of 1997 was allowed on 7.9.2000. The respondent also filed E.A.No.24 of 2001 for consequential amendment of the E.P.19 of 1997 and the said petition was ordered on 20.4.2001 since no counter was filed by the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors. 7. Though the judgment-debtors/defendants filed counter as stated above, they remained absent. Hence, the petition E.A.No.17 of 1997 was allowed on 7.9.2000. The respondent also filed E.A.No.24 of 2001 for consequential amendment of the E.P.19 of 1997 and the said petition was ordered on 20.4.2001 since no counter was filed by the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors. 7. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors, viz., the revision petitioners filed R.E.A.SR.Nos.3981 and 3982 of 2001, subject matter of these revisions to set aside the ex parte order dated 7.9.2000 made in R.E.A.No.17 of 1997 and to set aside the order dated 20.4.2001 made in R.E.A.No.24 of 2001 respectively. Both petitions were returned initially on 31.10.2001 that no such ex parte orders were passed in E.A.Nos.17 of 1997 and 24 of 2001. Finally, the petition R.E.A.SR.No.3981 of 2001 was returned on 12.12.2001 stating the above reason along with three other reasons. Similarly, the petition R.E.A.SR.No.3982 of 2001 was returned finally on 12.12.2001 stating that connected petition was returned and hence this petition is also returned as unnecessary. Challenging the return orders dated 12.12.2001, both these revisions are filed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors submitted that since in R.E.A.Nos.17 of 1997 and 24 of 2001, ex parte orders were passed, the unnumbered petitions R.E.A.SR.Nos.3981 and 3982 of 2001 were filed to set aside the ex parte orders, subject matter of these revisions and as such, the revision petitions are very much maintainable. The learned counsel also filed memo before this Court, that the plaintiff Rajeswari Ammal filed the suit for a sum of Rs.23,562.50, that Ragothama Chettiar received Rs.28,670.22 as on 30.6.1988, that the decree-holder received excess payment of Rs.5,107.72 in respect of the rent payable to the judgment-debtors being the owners and from the tenant NTC and that the revision petitioners also made payments in E.P.No.54 of 1993, totally a sum of Rs.10,000/- from 23.1.1995 to 24.4.1995. In that way excess payment of Rs.15,107.72 was made by the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors and as such, the decree-holder herself is to refund a sum of Rs.15,107.72 to the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors and therefore, no amount is payable towards E.P. claim. 10. In that way excess payment of Rs.15,107.72 was made by the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors and as such, the decree-holder herself is to refund a sum of Rs.15,107.72 to the revision petitioners/judgment-debtors and therefore, no amount is payable towards E.P. claim. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder argued that inasmuch as both the revisions have been filed challenging the return made as per endorsement dated 12.12.2001 in R.E.A.SR.Nos.3981 and 3982 of 2001 filed to set aside the ex parte orders, the revisions are not maintainable and in any event, the learned counsel further argued that since the subject matter of these revisions are only to set aside the ex parte orders passed in R.E.A.Nos.17 of 1997 and 24 of 2001, it cannot be decided in these revisions as to whether the judgment-debtors have paid excess payment as claimed by them to the tune of Rs.15,107.72 as per memo filed by the judgment-debtors. Further, it is also pointed out by the learned counsel that as per the counter filed in these revisions, the decree amount is Rs.26,287.85 and the interest from 10.2.1992 to 11.4.2004 at 9% comes to Rs.32,424.00 and cost is Rs.386.25 and total amount payable is to Rs.49,098.00, since the judgment-debtors paid Rs.10,000/- in the execution proceedings and in any event it is open to the judgment-debtors to raise such contention in the execution proceedings. 11. There is very much force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that though in the written statement, the defence was taken by the defendants/judgment-debtors that they paid some amounts as stated above, they did not choose to contest the suit and they also remained absent and were set ex parte. In the final decree proceedings also though they appeared through advocate, they did not contest the final decree proceedings. They also filed counter in the execution proceedings raising such plea. In the final decree proceedings also though they appeared through advocate, they did not contest the final decree proceedings. They also filed counter in the execution proceedings raising such plea. In fact, the judgment-debtors have filed counter in R.E.A.No.17 of 1997 stating that the said petition to implead the respondent being the adoptive daughter of Ragothama Chettiar and Rajeswari Ammal as the legal representative can be allowed subject to the questioning that she is the adopted daughter of Ragothama Chettiar and Rajeswari Ammal, but since they remained absent, an order was passed allowing the impleading petition R.E.A.No.17 of 1997 and consequent amendment petition R.E.A.No.24 of 2001 was also allowed on the ground that on the date of hearing the judgment-debtors did not file any counter. 12. The Executing Court considering all these aspects returned the petitions, subject matter of these revisions without passing any final orders which made the revision petitioners to move this Court by filing these revisions. After such return, the revision petitioners without representing that the matters have to be placed in open Court for necessary orders, have straightaway moved this Court and as such, the petitions filed against the return of the said petitions are not maintainable and therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 13. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed as not maintainable with costs. However, in the interest of justice, the Executing Court is directed to receive the petitions R.E.A.SR.No.3981 and 3982 of 2001, subject matter of these revisions, if they are in order, on file and dispose the same in accordance with law by August, 2005. The revision petitioners are directed to represent the above petitions complying with the directions issued on 12.12.2001 within one week from today.