Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner / defendant preferred this revision petition against the judgment and decree passed in CMA No.172 of 2001 in which confirmed the order passed by the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.15723 of 2000 in O.S.No.2291 of 1991. 2. For the sake of convenience the defendant in the original suit is referred as revision petitioner and the plaintiff in the Original Suit is referred as respondent hereafter. 3. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.2291 of 1991 against the revision petitioner for recovery of possession and also arrears of rent. Since the revision petitioner remained ex parte, an ex parte decree was passed by the Trial Court on 26.02.1992. 4. The revision petitioner who is the defendant in Original Suit filed an application in I.A.No.15723 of 2000 on 15.09.1998 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. After perusal of the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner herein, the trial Court has dismissed the application on 27.08.2001. Aggrieved by the above said dismissal order passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.172 of 2001, the appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. As against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below the revision petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The revision petitioner has stated the reasons for delay in his affidavit as follows:-The revision petitioner was not served with suit summon in the Original Suit. On 03.09.1998 at 12.00 noon, the Court Bailiff came to execute the warrant for delivery of possession of the property in E.P.No.793 of 1997 and on that date the revision petitioner was not present. Therefore, the Bailiff went away by saying that he will come again. Thereafter, the tenants informed to the revision petitioner about ameens visit to the revision petitioner's property. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of delivery passed in execution proceedings and for stay and also for recall of delivery of warrant. Therefore, the Bailiff went away by saying that he will come again. Thereafter, the tenants informed to the revision petitioner about ameens visit to the revision petitioner's property. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of delivery passed in execution proceedings and for stay and also for recall of delivery of warrant. On enquiry, the revision petitioner came to know that the Original Suit was decreed ex parte on 26.02.1992 and also delivery warrant was obtained ex parte and hence, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 26.02.1992 within a period of 30 days from the date of knowledge of the revision petitioner. Therefore, prayed for to set aside the exparte decree. 8. The respondent herein filed a detailed counter, in which, denied the contention of the revision petitioner and stated as follows:- The respondent herein filed the original suit on 01.04.1991. Since the revision petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court, he was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 26.02.1992. Subsequently, the respondent herein has filed an execution petition for recovery of possession. In the execution proceedings, notice was ordered and for several hearings the revision petitioner purposely evaded to receive the notice, after having the knowledge of the decree. Therefore, the executing Court has ordered for publication and also for affixture of notice in the premises. Therefore, the executing Court has followed the procedure and also gave sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner. Further, the revision petitioner has managed to drag on the proceedings for several years, and therefore, the application filed by revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. The trial Court has discussed the above said averments made in the application and counter and finally held that in the Original Suit, an ex parte decree was passed on 26.02.1992, and the application to set aside the above said ex parte decree filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC only on 15.09.1998 after several years and not filed within 30 days. The trial Court has also held that the revision petitioner has not at all produced any materials to prove that the revision petitioner having no knowledge about the pending proceedings of Original Suit and also execution proceedings but the application was filed after six years and further the revision petitioner has failed to prove the contention that the revision petitioner has no knowledge about the earlier proceedings and therefore, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The appellate Court has also discussed about the contentions raised by both side and finally confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended that in the suit or in the execution proceedings no notice was personally served to the revision petitioner and in the above said execution proceedings the notice was returned as refused and then the Court has passed an order for publication. The learned counsel further pointed out that the revision petitioner has filed the application within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree and therefore, the orders passed by both Courts below are not correct. The learned counsel further submitted that both the Courts below failed to looked into the materials available on record in respect of the service of notice but both the Courts below have wrongly held that the revision petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the revision petitioner having knowledge only on 03.09.1998 and therefore, the above said findings of both the Courts below are not correct. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing of the respondent would submit that the summon issued in the main suit and also notice issued in the execution proceedings were refused by the revision petitioner and therefore, ordered to affixture of notice in the premises and also by way of publication and therefore, the above said services are sufficient. The learned counsel has also submitted that the revision petitioner had sub leased the premises to other two persons. Further, the revision petitioner has not at all paid the rent and the rent arrears alone is about Rupees Ten Lakhs. The learned counsel further submitted that this revision petition is filed only to delay the proceedings and occupied the premises without payment of rent for further period and hence, no merits in the application. 12. Further, the revision petitioner has not at all paid the rent and the rent arrears alone is about Rupees Ten Lakhs. The learned counsel further submitted that this revision petition is filed only to delay the proceedings and occupied the premises without payment of rent for further period and hence, no merits in the application. 12. A careful perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts below revealed that the summon and notice were duly ordered and the above said summon and notice were refused by the revision petitioner, and then only the trial court and executing court ordered for publication and affixture in the premises. The revision petitioner side has not produced any materials to prove that on the date of the above said summon and notice the revision petitioner was not available in the above said address and also not at all produced any materials to prove that the Court Ameens was not affixed the notice in the revision petition premises. Further the revision petitioner has not appeared before the Court below to deny the contention of the respondent that the revision petitioner refused to receive the summon, in the suit notice in the execution proceedings, notice affixture in the premises etc., facts. Both the Courts below have considered all the contentions raised by both side, and finally given correct findings and therefore, no need to interfere with the above said findings. 13. Further, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent about Ten Lakh Rupees. From the above said conduct of the revision petitioner also revealed that the application to set aside the ex parte decree filed only to drag on the proceeding further and therefore, no merits in the above said application. From the above said discussion this Court is of the view that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.