Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. This civil revision petition has been focussed so as to set aside the entire E.P proceedings in E.P.No.21 of 2011 in O.S.No.139 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi. 3. The pith and marrow, the gist and kernel of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: The respondent herein happened to be the decree holder, who filed the E.P seeking execution of the sale deed by the court in his favour and for delivery of the property concerned based on the exparte decree for specific performance. 4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, notice was sent to the judgment debtor and there was no response. Hence, the exparte decree was passed. Whereupon, the sale deed was executed and the decree holder was taking steps to obtain delivery of possession of the property concerned. In the meanwhile, the judgment debtor, as narrated by the learned counsel for the decree holder, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the exparte order passed in the execution petition itself. Now, the Execution petition is pending before the executing court for counter to be filed by the judgment debtor; while so, in order to drag on the proceedings, he has chosen to file this civil revision petition and pressing for the same. 5. Whereas in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the argument as put forth on the side of the respondent/decree holder, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor would detail and delineate certain facts, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: E.P notice was not served on the judgment debtor and for that matter draft sale deed also was not served as per Order 21 Rule 34 r/w Rules 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, in the meanwhile, the decree holder also started creating third party interest in the subject matter of the suit property. The judgment debtor in the meanwhile filed an application to get the delay of 184 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the exparte decree and that application is also pending before the same court. 6. The judgment debtor in the meanwhile filed an application to get the delay of 184 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the exparte decree and that application is also pending before the same court. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether any specific order from this court is required in this factual matrix as detailed by both sides? 7. The learned counsel for the decree holder would unambiguously and unequivocally, without minching words would state that the exparte order passed in the execution petition was set aside and opportunity was given to the judgment debtor to file counter and it is for him to highlight all these points in the counter. 8. I could see considerable force in his submission. It is for the judgment debtor to file counter and highlight all these points, which he raised even in this revision relating to the alleged illegality attached to the execution of the sale deed also. Meanwhile, it is for the judgment debtor to pursue his application to get the delay condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. As such recording the factual as well as the legal positions as aforesaid, I would like to dispose of this civil revision petition. Accordingly, with the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.