Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The respondents in E.P. No.34 of 2009 in O.S. No.26 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee has filed this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 10.12.2009 passed in E.P. No.34 of 2009 in O.S. No.26 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below has passed the impugned order for delivery of possession of suit property against the petitioner/judgment debtor without following proper procedure. 4. As per the decree dated 09.01.2009, the Execution Petition was filed by the respondents/decree holders. As per the order dated 10.12.2009, it is seen that publication was effected and the petitioner as respondent/judgment debtor was called absent and set exparte and delivery was ordered by 04.01.2010 by the Executing Court. The petitioner/judgment debtor has produced a certified copy of the petition and order passed by the Executing court, the certified copy of the petition and order dated 30.12.2009 shows that as per Amins endorsement possession was delivered. However, delivery was not recorded by the E.P. Court, since petition to set aside the exparte order is pending before the said Court and EP was posted stating exparte set aside petition pending delivery by 20.01.2010. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has to exhaust his remedy by way of filing the petition to set aside the order before the Court below. Execution Application was filed by the petitioner seeking an order to set aside the exparte order dated 10.12.2009 made in E.P. No.34 of 2009 without seeking appropriate relief before the Court below, the petitioner cannot maintain the revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to urgency in order to protect the interest of the petitioner/ judgment debtor, the revision was preferred. 5. As contemplated under Section 115 C.P.C., revision is maintainable against an order or judgment rendered by any Court Subordinate to such High court where no appeal lies thereto and if such Subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. 6. In the instant case, as per order dated 10.12.2009, after publication was effected, the respondents/judgment debtors therein was called absent and set exparte and delivery was ordered by 04.01.2010. 7. I could find no illegality or material irregularity in the aforesaid order. It is open to the respondents/judgment debtors to file proper petition before the Executing Court to set aside the exparte order dated 10.12.2009. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein filed a petition seeking an order to set aside the exparte order dated 10.12.2009. It has been admitted by both the counsel that E.A. No.248 of 2009 and E.A. No.249 in E.P. No.34 of 2009 are pending before the Executing Court and they were posted for hearing on 15.03.2010. After hearing both sides, the Court is of the considered view that it will suffice to direct the Court below to dispose both E.As on merits, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court in the order. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.