Judgment : 1. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. questioning the legality and sustainability of the judgment and decreetal order of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode, dated 09.10.2012 made in C.M.A.No.23 of 2012 on the file of his Court. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred against the dismissal of I.A.No.1447 of 2010 in O.S.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The said application had been filed for setting aside the ex-parte preliminary decree passed in the above said suit on 07.09.2010. 2. The petitioner and respondent in the revision petition are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel arguing on behalf of the counsel on record for the petitioner and by Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record sent for from the Courts below are also perused. 3. The above said suit O.S.No.137 of 2005 was originally filed by the respondent herein along with her mother Lakshmi for partition. Later on, since there was no cooperation by the mother of the respondent, she was transposed as a defendant and arrayed as second defendant, whereas the original sole defendant viz., the revision petitioner was redefined as the first defendant. Throughout the proceedings, Lakshmi, the second defendant did not contest the case and she remained ex-parte. The revision petitioner, who figured as the first defendant initially entered appearance through counsel and took time for filing written statement, but failed to file written statement within the time granted by the Court. The same resulted in an ex-parte decree being passed against him for the first time on 10.10.2005. The said decree dated 10.10.2005 was set aside on an application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. as I.A.No.762 of 2005. Thereafter, he filed a written statement admitting the claim of the respondent herein to be a co-parcener in respect of the first item of the suit properties. However, he had contended that the second item of the suit properties was the separate property of Komarasamy Gounder, the father of the revision petitioner as well as the respondent herein and that the entire second item and the share of the father in the first item were bequeathed by Komarasamy Gounder on his son viz., the revision petitioner, under a Will dated 04.04.2004. When the matter stood posted for trial on 14.11.2006, he did not appear for trial, as a result of which, an ex-parte preliminary decree came to be passed for the second time on 14.11.2006. The said decree was also set aside by an order dated 15.12.2006 made in I.A.No.864 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioner herein under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. 4. Subsequently, the first defendant participated in trial and he chose to lead evidence before ever the plaintiff would lead evidence as he had set up a Will allegedly left by Komarasamy Gounder. After completion of his chief examination, he did not turn up for being cross examined. Hence, an order came to be passed on 05.06.2007 closing his evidence. Again, the petitioner availed the indulgence of the Court when he filed I.A.Nos.445 and 644 of 2007 to reopen the case and for further examination of the first witness on the side of the defendant by allowing those applications. After the said applications were allowed, the revision petitioner was not prepared to proceed with the trial. On the other hand, he chose to file another application I.A.No.636 of 2007 to send for certain documents from Erode Tindalmalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank for the purpose of comparison of the signature of Komarasamy Gounder contained therein with the disputed Will propounded by him. The said application was allowed and the documents were received from the said Bank. After the receipt of those documents, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed I.A.No.146 of 2008 for getting an expert opinion regarding the disputed Will dated 04.04.2004 by referring the same to the Regional Forensic Laboratory. The expert in the Forensic Laboratory gave a report opining that the Will dated 04.04.2004 was a forged one. Subsequent to the same, the revision petitioner failed to appear for continuation of the trial and hence, after setting him ex-parte, ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded in the form of proof affidavit and the trial Court passed an ex-parte preliminary decree as prayed for by the plaintiff on 07.09.2010. 5. Once again, the revision petitioner filed application I.A.No.1447 of 2010 under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex-parte preliminary decree dated 07.09.2010. 5. Once again, the revision petitioner filed application I.A.No.1447 of 2010 under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex-parte preliminary decree dated 07.09.2010. In the supporting affidavit, it was averred that the revision petitioner had filed another application for sending the document to a private handwriting expert; that the revision petitioner was of the view that the said application would be taken up at the first instance and that on the other hand, to his dismay, the trial Court took up the trial, conducted ex-parte trial and decreed the suit as prayed for. The said reason assigned by the revision petitioner herein was found to be not genuine and not sufficient for accepting the prayer of the revision petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree. 6. The learned trial Judge also took note of the past conduct of the revision petitioner in allowing the suit to be decreed ex-parte thrice and the fact that the ex-parte decree, which was sought to be set aside in that application was the decree passed on the third time. The various steps taken by the revision petitioner to protract the case were also taken note of by the learned trial Judge to arrive at a conclusion that the revision petitioner was not prevented by any reasonable cause from appearing in the Court on the day fixed for continuation of trial. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application by order dated 15.07.2011. 7. On appeal in C.M.A.No.23 of 2012, the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode, concurred with the views of the trial Court, found no fault or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and dismissed the said C.M.A. confirming the order of the trial Court. The said judgement and decree of the Appellate Court dated 09.10.2012 confirming the order of the trial Court dated 15.11.2011 is the subject matter of the present revision. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, repeating and reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1447 of 2010 before the trial Court, contends that since an application had been filed by him in the office of the trial Court, the trial Court ought to have refrained from proceeding with the trial and passed an order in the said application before ever an ex-parte decree could have been passed on the basis that the revision petitioner was absent. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that an application had been filed in the office of the trial Court for seeking a second opinion on the disputed document from a private handwriting expert, the learned counsel is not in a position to furnish the date on which such a petition was filed and the S.R. number of such application or other particulars. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the very intention of the revision petitioner was to protract the case as long as possible which shall be obvious from the various stages of the case which were indicated in the foregoing paragraphs and that such an intention of the revision petitioner got intensified after the report of the Forensic Expert was received and the same was found to be against the revision petitioner. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is unnecessary to repeat the factual matrix indicated supra to hold that neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner had not proved that he was prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing in the Court for proceeding with the trial. Though there is no proof of the revision petitioner having filed an application for seeking second opinion, the same cannot be successfully projected as a reason for his absence on the date of hearing. If at all such an application had been filed, the hearing date of the suit should have been noted therein and it is the bounden duty of the party filing such an application to be present when the suit is taken up for trial or further trial and inform the Court that such an application has been filed and pray that the said application also should be taken up along with the suit and necessary orders be passed in such application. Curiously, the revision petitioner did not appear on the hearing date. It will give an impression that after seeing the expert's report, which was against his plea, he had chosen to keep away from the Court and at the same time, chose to file an application, may be defective, with a view to project it as a reason for his non appearance in the suit. It will give an impression that after seeing the expert's report, which was against his plea, he had chosen to keep away from the Court and at the same time, chose to file an application, may be defective, with a view to project it as a reason for his non appearance in the suit. The said reason, at no stretch of imagination, can be accepted to be valid and sufficient for his absence. The past conduct of the revision petitioner in conducting the case will show that he was very much bent upon protracting the case as he was unwilling to part with even the admitted share of the respondent. The order passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court, cannot be termed an order passed without jurisdiction or an order passed without exercising jurisdiction conferred on it. Nor can it be said to be an order as a result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction or with material irregularity in which case alone this Court can interfere with the order by exercising its power of review under Section 115 of C.P.C. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. Though this is a fit case for taxing the revision petitioner with cost, since it is not pressed by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court does not pass any order regarding cost. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.