( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 5-11 -2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at kurnool, dismissing the application in e. A. No. 373 of 2002 in E. P. No. 460 of 1997 in o. P. No. 132 of 1991, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 450 of days in filing an application for restoration of the said E. P.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as "the decree-holder and judgment- debtor" respectively.

( 4 ) THE factual background in short is that in Land Acquisition Proceedings, some amount along with additional market value had been awarded by the Civil Court towards compensation in O. P. No. 132 of 1991. In order to recover the said amount, the present E. P. , had been filed by the decree-holder after a lapse of more than eleven years, but within the period of limitation. The actual amount of compensation had been received by the decree-holder and the said E. P. , had been filed only to recover the additional market value. The court below directed attachment of movables of the judgment-debtor subject to payment of process fee. It appears that since the process fee was not paid within the prescribed time, the said E. P. , itself was dismissed by an order, dated 15-9-2001, for non-compliance of the conditional order i. e. , payment of process fee. The decree-holder contended that his Advocate owing to his pre-occupation could not attend the court on that particular day and the case had been entrusted to his colleague, but unfortunately since there was no representation, the said e. P. , was dismissed. The decree-holder further states that even after it was informed by his Advocate, he could not file any application seeking restoration as he was afflicted with cardiac problem and that he was advised not to travel. Hence, the present E. A. , was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 450 days in filing an application seeking restoration of the said e. P.

( 5 ) THE said application was dismissed by the court below mainly on the ground that the time prescribed under Order-21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order passed under Order-21 Rule 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure is 30 days and inasmuch as the said application had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation no remedy is available for the parties to seek condonation of such a delay. It was further held by the court below that the provisions of Section-5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the execution proceedings and as such invocation of inherent power under Section-151 of the code of Civil Procedure is impermissible. Of course, the application was dismissed on merits also disbelieving the alleged illness of the decree-holder since there was no material placed on record substantiating his plea. Hence, the present Civil Revision petition.

( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder is that the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes period of limitation as 30 days under sub- rule (3) Rule-106 of Order-21 of the Code of civil Procedure to set aside the order passed ex parte. Therefore, in the interests of justice, he contends that an application is maintainable under Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 7 ) PER contra, Sri Rama Rao, the learned assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the judgment-debtor, contends that the principles of Limitation Act under section-5 are inapplicable to the proceedings under Order-21 of the Code of civil Procedure. Therefore, when there is specific exclusion of Order-21 from the purview of Section-5 of the Limitation Act, the same cannot be entertained by invoking the jurisdiction under Section-151 of the code of Civil Procedure. In order to substantiate his contention, he heavily relies on the judgment