Judgment :- Civil Revision Petition No:1616 of 2006 has been filed against the order dated 29.03.2006 made in I.A.No:3071/2004 in O.S.No:10596/87 passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. Civil Revision Petition No:1617 of 2006 has been against the order dated 17. 2005 made in I.A.No:17086/2004 in O.S.No:10596/87 passed by the same court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit OS.No:10596 of 1987. the said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,700/= and for salary at the rate of Rs.2000/= per month from 24. 1987 along with allowances. Written statement was filed by the petitioner. The suit came to be decreed ex parte on 26. 1992. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No:13071 of 2004 on 27. 2004 for passing of a final decree. According to the petitioner it was only when the notice was received in the said I.A., the petitioner was aware of the ex parte decree and therefore filed I.A.NO:17086 of 2004 to condone the delay in filing the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree. The I.A filed by the plaintiff has been ordered and the I.A., filed by the defendant for setting aside the exparte decree has been dismissed and as against which, both the CRPs are filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly contended that the exparte decree in the suit is not a preliminary decree since it is a suit for simple recovery of money. No time frame has been fixed, no contingency has been envisaged and it is a simple decree for recovery of money. Only in mortgage suits, Partition suits and suits for accounting, preliminary decree and final decree will come into play and therefore, the decree dated 26. 1992 it not a preliminary decree but is a final decree by itself due to which there cannot be a petition to pass a final decree and as a result the petition filed by the plaintiff for passing of a final decree is not maintainable. 5. Further in the I.A., the plaintiff has quoted a wrong provision of law viz., Order XXXIV Rule 2(b) CPC when the suit is a simple money suit. 5. Further in the I.A., the plaintiff has quoted a wrong provision of law viz., Order XXXIV Rule 2(b) CPC when the suit is a simple money suit. Further, even assuming that final decree petition is maintainable, the period of limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act is only 3 years and not 12 year and therefore the I.A., filed beyond the period of 3 years is not maintainable. It is also further contended that the claim for holiday allowance, conveyance allowance, medical allowance and bonus are part of the suit claim and they have been ascertained in the suit itself and there cannot be a separate petition claiming the same. 6. It is also stated that the Execution Petition filed at the first instance was rejected on the alleged instruction that for ascertainment of the amount a petition for passing of final decree can be filed at the later time, and without challenging the same, the same will not entitle the plaintiff to file a second petition which is not sustainable in law. Further, the maintainability of the said petition can be canvassed at any stage. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the basis of the exparte decree he filed EP (SR) No.27187/2003 within the limitation period. But the office returned the papers on the ground that without assigning the amount of allowance and bonus the respondent cannot maintain the petition since the decree does not state the amount of bonus and allowance. On 11. 2004 the IX Assistant Judge also passed an order that without determining the amount of allowances and bonus and salary, the EP cannot be filed. In the said order it is also stated that after fixing the amount of allowance and salary, the plaintiff can file the E.P. afresh. The learned Judge also orally instructed to file a final decree petition before the concerned court and fix the amount of salary and allowance. It is only as per the direction of the learned Judge the I.A., for fixing the allowances and salary was filed which was admitted by the learned Judge and issued notice. In the said petition, the petitioner/defendant also filed his counter, wherein he has not raised any objection that the final decree will not arise. It is only as per the direction of the learned Judge the I.A., for fixing the allowances and salary was filed which was admitted by the learned Judge and issued notice. In the said petition, the petitioner/defendant also filed his counter, wherein he has not raised any objection that the final decree will not arise. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence let in by either side, the learned Judge passed a final decree on 23. 2006. Thereafter the respondent also filed second E.P.No.1951 of 2006 in which notice was ordered. But the petitioner herein remained absent and after setting him ex parte, attachment was ordered. On the petitioner filing a petitioner for raising the said attachment, the learned Judge passed a conditional order to deposit Rs.1,00,000/=. At this stage the present CRPs are filed. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that as provided under Section 2(b) CPC and explanation thereof the decree is to be treated only as a preliminary decree as the suit has not been disposed of after complete adjudication of the issues. It is also submitted that it is not necessary that preliminary decree and final decree could be passed only in partition, mortgage and account suits since as per the definition of the CPC final decree may arise in any suit even for money suit also if any quantum is to be determined, the same will be decided in the final decree proceedings. 9. The main point which requires answer in this case is whether the decree dated 26. 1992 is in the nature of a preliminary decree and following the same a petition for final decree could be filed? 10. The Explanation to Section 2(b) CPC reads that "A decree is preliminary when further proceeding have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposed of suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final". 11. In this connection clause (2) of the decree requires a mention which reads as follows: "that the defendant do pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,000/= (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month as salary along with the allowances with interest at 12% p.a. From 26. 1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement to service and such ascertained amount shall be recoverable on payment of requisite court fee by the plaintiff." 12. 1987 till the date of relieving or reinstatement to service and such ascertained amount shall be recoverable on payment of requisite court fee by the plaintiff." 12. Admittedly, the defendant has been set ex parte and the suit has been decreed ex parte. Therefore, naturally, there is no adjudication of the entitlement as to the amounts claimed under various heads to be paid to the plaintiff as per the decree. Hence, in the present case the allowances and bonus which the plaintiff is entitled having not been adjudicated in the suit, the decree passed only amounts to a partly preliminary decree and such amount has to be determined only in the final decree proceedings by taking out an application. Thus the decree-dated 26. 1992 is a partly preliminary decree in respect of the relief for allowances and bonus and partly final decree in respect of other relief’s sought for. 13. In fact the first E.P., which has been filed (in S.R.stage) within the period of limitation has not been numbered by the court, and rightly too, on the ground that the amount of allowances and the bonus have not been ascertained and the papers have been returned. It is also stated that by order dated 11. 2004, the XI Assistant Judge mentioned that the E.P., can be filed after determining the amount of allowances and bonus and also orally instructed to file a final decree petition in that regard. It is thereafter only the respondent filed I.A.No:13071 of 2004 for passing of final decree and in that application the petitioner herein filed a counter as well, in which he has not raised this point. Thus having failed to raise such an objection before the court below, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to come and raise the same at his convenience in the appellate or revisional forum. After the said application has been disposed of on 23. 2006, the respondent filed E.P.No:1951 of 2006 and even in the said proceeding the petitioner herein remained absent and ex exparte and order of attachment has been passed. Therefore it cannot also be said that there is a second Execution Petition filed by the respondent. 14. After the said application has been disposed of on 23. 2006, the respondent filed E.P.No:1951 of 2006 and even in the said proceeding the petitioner herein remained absent and ex exparte and order of attachment has been passed. Therefore it cannot also be said that there is a second Execution Petition filed by the respondent. 14. As regards CRP.No:1617 of 2006 is concerned, it is against the dismissal order passed by the learned Judge in I.A.No:17086 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner herein for condoning the delay of 4,430 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the main suit. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioner has already filed a set aside petition on 26. 1992 in I.A.No:12848 of 1992 and since there was no representation for several hearings the matter was finally called on 29. 1995 i.e., after three years and the said petition was dismissed. But the petitioner instead of filing either a restoration petition of I.A.No.12838/92 or preferring a CRP for the dismissal of the said I.A., has filed the present second I.A., to condone the delay of 4430 days. The learned Judge on a consideration of the averments dismissed the said I.A., holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for such an enormous delay. In fact the petitioner by his conduct dragging the execution petition for nearly 20 years. It is well settled that the courts of law should be careful enough to see that by such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor, the decree holder cannot be denied of the fruits of the decree obtained by him. 15. In the above circumstances, both the CRPs are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No cost.