Judgment 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and final order dated 15.10.1996 passed in E.P.No.74 of 1987 in O.S.No.291 of 1971 on the file of the District Munisf, Nagapattinam. 2. There are totally five respondents. When the Court ordered notice to the third respondent, the notice sent to him was returned with an endorsement that the third respondent died. Thereafter, a Memo dated 8.4.2013 has been filed stating that respondents 1 and 2 being the sons of the third respondent, would be the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent. The Memo dated 8.4.2013 was taken on record and the respondents 1 and 2 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent. 3. Yet another Memo dated 8.4.2013 has been filed wherein it is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have not been served. As per the orders of this Court, private notices have been sent to them, but the acknowledgment cards were not received yet. The respondents 1 and 2 were remained ex-pare before the Executing Court. Therefore, notice to them may be dispensed with. The said memo dated 8.4.2013 is also recorded. Hence, notice to respondents 1 and 2 are dispensed with for time being. 4. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the dismissal order passed on 15.10.1996 in E.P.No.74 1987 in O.S.No.291 of 1971 by the Executing Court. 5. It is the grievance of the revision petitioner that the dismissal of the Execution Petition on 15.10.1996 is unjustified and since there is material irregularity and illegality in the dismissal order, it should be set aside. 6. The reason stated by the Executing Court is that already seven times delivery has been ordered, but, not executed and therefore this Execution Petition is dismissed. 7. The order reads as follows: “Petitioner and respondent present. Already seven times delivery ordered but not executed. This Execution Petition is dismissed.” 8. Just because after ordering delivery in seven Execution Petitions, it could not be executed, it cannot be said that the relief can be refused for the eighth time. The reason for dismissal should have been the reason for entertaining the petition for execution. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court is set aside. Just because after ordering delivery in seven Execution Petitions, it could not be executed, it cannot be said that the relief can be refused for the eighth time. The reason for dismissal should have been the reason for entertaining the petition for execution. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to take the Execution Petition No.74 of 1987 on file and after ordering notice to all the respondents (except 3rd respondent, who died) and after hearing both sides, decide the same on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible. 10. With the above said direction the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.