Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 30.06.2011 passed in E.A.SR.No.7910 of 2011 in E.P.No.9 of 2008 in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1999, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, by inviting the attention of this Court to the grounds of this revision petition and also the relevant typed set of papers, would pyramid his arguments thus: E.P. was filed by the claimant for recovering the enhanced amount in the L.A.O.P. In the said E.P., the revision petitioner herein was arrayed as the second respondent, who remained exparte. Subsequently, an application in E.A.SR.No.7910 of 2011 was filed so as to get the exparte order set aside. However, the lower Court returned the application with the following endorsement: "Returned: Previous return holds good. Time: One month" 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, as per the settled proposition of law, the application can be filed to get the delay condoned in filing the application to get set aside the exparte order in E.P. He would cite the decision of this Court in N. Rajendran Vs. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011(6) CTC 268. As per him, without considering all these facts, simply the application was returned on the sole ground that the Court itself has got no jurisdiction to entertain such application. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the claimant would narrate in detail the case of the claimant/land loser thus: According to him, the Housing Board is having no independent objection or contentions de hors objection and contention raised by the other respondent viz., the first respondent in this case. In such a case, the Court after hearing the first respondent/Government passed an elaborate order warranting no interference at all. As such, the attempt on the part of the revision petitioner is nothing but an illegal one to prevent the respondent/land loser from recovering the enhanced compensation. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in simply returning the application without even numbering it and giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard? The Point: 8. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in simply returning the application without even numbering it and giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard? The Point: 8. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the decision of this Court in N. Rajendran Vs. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011(6) CTC 268. By placing reliance on the same, he would submit that as per the aforesaid precedent, the Executing Court can very well condone the delay in filing the application to get set aside the exparte order passed in E.P. 9. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant/ land loser would contend that the aforesaid decision is not evincing the current law. 10. Be that as it may, in this Civil Revision Petition, I do not like to give a final verdict on it. But one thing I would like to point out is that the trial Court was not justified in simply returning the application. In the meantime, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he wants to resubmit the application which was returned along with an application to get the delay condoned in filing the application to get set aside the exparte order passed in the E.P. It is upto him to do so if he so desires. The lower Court is expected to number the application, if any filed, to get the delay condoned in filing the application to get set aside the exparte order passed and pass suitable orders on merits, untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. The point is answered accordingly. 11. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.