Judgment :- 1. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The original suit O.S.No.60 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-Contractor as against the defendant-Municipality for recovery of certain amounts; whereupon exparte judgment and decree was passed; in order to get the exparte judgment and decree set aside, the said Municipality filed I.A.No.860 of 2006 and that was allowed. (ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed in the I.A., the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed this revision on various grounds including the one that there was enormous delay in filing the said application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that that there was no bona fides on the part of the said Municipality concerned. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The point for consideration is as to whether there was delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to get the exparte judgment and decree set aside and if so, whether there was any irregularity and perversity in the order passed by the court below in giving opportunity to the defendant to contest the matter? 4. My learned predecessor called upon the court below to find out as to whether there was delay and if so, whether despite that without entertaining any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was numbered, processed and allowed. 5. The present learned Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi in his detailed explanation pointed out that the said application in I.A.No.860 of 2010 was presented within the limitation period; however several times, it was returned and represented and it was ultimately numbered in the year 2006. 6. A perusal of the records would display and demonstrate that the exparte judgment and decree was passed on 29.10.2002; whereas the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed on 26.11.2002, obviously within 30 days; but, it was repeatedly returned and represented, which practice should have been avoided. 7. Be that as it may, apparently and obviously, there is no delay on the part of the defendant-Municipality in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. 7. Be that as it may, apparently and obviously, there is no delay on the part of the defendant-Municipality in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The contention of the plaintiff was that a copy application was filed to ascertain whether any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the defendant-Municipality. 8. Now that the matter is clear. Because of the repeated returning and representation, apparently to the mind of the plaintiff there was delay and because of that alone certain contentions have been raised by him. Under the technicalities of law, the defendant is taking shelter. The defendant should not have filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC in such a manner, so as to get return of the same several times; and for that necessarily, certain cost should have been imposed; but the lower court failed to do so. No doubt, in the interest of audi alteram partem, due opportunity has to be given to a public body like the Municipality; but in the meantime, one should not lose sight of the fact that a public body being a big litigant, should be diligent enough in prosecuting the matter and that too against a citizen, the plaintiff herein. 9. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the view that even though this court may not find fault with the opportunity given by the lower court to the defendant-Municipality to contest the matter, it should have awarded cost. Hence, I would like to impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the defendant-Municipality to the plaintiff/revision petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today. On such payment being made, the lower court shall see to it that the entire matter is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.