JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in E.A.No.80/2011 in E.P.No.252/2010, whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order passed in the said E.P. on 13.07.2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 02.12.2009 an award came to be passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore against the petitioner herein directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,062/- with interest to the respondent herein. It is seen that the said award was passed ex-parte since the petitioner did not take part in the award proceedings. Consequently the respondent filed E.P.No.252 of 2010 for realisation of the award amount before the Court below. Though notice was served on the petitioner in the execution proceedings, he has not chosen to appear when the matter was called on 29.03.2011 and consequently the Execution Court passed an ex-parte order in the execution proceedings on 29.03.2011. Thereafter the petitioner filed E.A.No.80 of 2011 on 29.04.2011 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed in the execution proceedings. Though the said petition was filed after the period of 30 days, the Court below has numbered the same and taken up for hearing. The respondent herein as the respondent in E.A.No.80 of 2011 contested the said application by filing a counter. It is specifically stated by the respondent that the said E.A. filed on 29.04.2011 is out of time and without there being any application seeking to condone the delay, E.A.No.80 of 2011 is not at all maintainable. The Court below considered the rival contentions of the respective parties and also by taking note of the fact that the E.A. came to be filed after a period of 30 days without any separate application seeking to condone the delay, dismissed the application as not maintainable. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Mr. S.Parthasarathy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got a valid ground to contest the E.P. by questioning the validity of the award passed. According to the learned senior counsel the award passed against the petitioner is nullity on various grounds. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Mr. S.Parthasarathy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got a valid ground to contest the E.P. by questioning the validity of the award passed. According to the learned senior counsel the award passed against the petitioner is nullity on various grounds. Though he submitted so, he fairly brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner in fact filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.17256 of 2011, challenging the very same award and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 13.12.2012 after considering all the facts and circumstances. He has also produced a copy of the order passed by the learned Judge in the said writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in fact the execution petition was ordered and thereafter in pursuant to the order passed, the property of the petitioner was attached and it was also brought for sale and the property was sold. At that stage, the present application filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained, that too, when the same was filed beyond the period of 30 days. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials placed before me. 6. The fact remains that an award came to be passed against the petitioner on 02.12.2009 and he remained exparte before the Council which passed the award. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had challenged the award before this Court in a writ petition in W.P.No.17256 of 2011 and the said writ petition was dismissed by passing a detailed order on 13.12.2012. It is stated that the said order has not been further challenged and the same has become final. In the meantime, the respondent has already filed E.P.No.252 of 2010 seeking for execution of the award passed on 02.12.2009. Even in the execution proceedings the petitioner did not appear and he remained exparte. Consequently E.P. was ordered on 29.03.2011. Atleast the petitioner could have filed an application within a period of 30 days to set aside the exparte order. In the meantime, the respondent has already filed E.P.No.252 of 2010 seeking for execution of the award passed on 02.12.2009. Even in the execution proceedings the petitioner did not appear and he remained exparte. Consequently E.P. was ordered on 29.03.2011. Atleast the petitioner could have filed an application within a period of 30 days to set aside the exparte order. Here again the petitioner filed the application beyond the period of 30 days and however for the reasons best known to the Court below, the same was numbered and taken up for hearing. It is to be seen that mere numbering of the application by the Court below itself would not absolve the liability of the petitioner to establish as to how the petition was maintainable as the same was not filed within a period of 30 days especially when the other side raises such an issue. Mere numbering the petition by the Court below cannot be taken to mean that the delay has been condoned by the Court below especially in the absence of any petition filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay. The Court below has considered all these facts and found that the application filed by the petitioner is beyond the period of 30 days and therefore the same is not maintainable. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.