5.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was represented through the power agent in all the proceedings, but in the decree, the name of the power agent was not mentioned. Without carrying out the correction, the respondent has filed the execution petition, which is unlawful. In the execution petition, notice was sent to the revision petitioner to his earlier address and that the revision petitioner was residing in the present address for the past two years and paper publication was given. Thereafter, the revision petitioner was set exparte by the trial Court. On the basis of the delivery order, the Court Ameen dispossess the revision petitioner by evicting the staffs and the employees from the bakery shop. There is a delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte order passed in E.P.No.27 of 2018. If the delay is not condoned, the revision petitioner will be put in to irreparable loss and hardship. To set aside the exparte order, the delay excuse petition is to be numbered. The petitioner came to know the delivery order, only on the date of eviction. The revision petitioner consulted the principal, who was out of station at that time and then he has to consult the counsel. Hence, there was a delay of 83 days in filing the set aside petition. Instead of numbering the E.A. Petition, the trial Court has returned the file with an endorsement that E.P. Was terminated on the ground of delivery of properties and the petition become infructuous. It is further stated that the petitioner is having a right to file an execution application even after the termination of the E.P. Proceedings.
