ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 30.11.2017 dismissing the petition in E.A. No. 75 of 2016 in E.P. No. 243 of 2010 (old No. 206 of 2007) in O.S. No. 191 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 1138 days in filing the application to set aside the order dated 15.02.2011 dismissing E.P. No. 243 of 2010 for not filing valuation certificate and non-judicial stamps and for want of representation by the DHr.

2. Heard Sri K. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Nageswara Rao Turaga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kiran Tirumalasetty, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner/petitioner/4th DHr contended that the delay of 1138 days in filing the application to set aside the order occurred because the DHrs were under the impression that the execution petition was pending and they came to know about the dismissal of the EP only as the advocate who inform them about the dismissal of the EP when they approached on receipt of notice in caveat. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that there are no willful latches in causing the delay.

4. The petition was opposed by the 1st respondent by filing counter stating that Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings in execution under Order 21 CPC and that the petitioner shall explain day to day delay. The 1st respondent denied the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay and contended that the petitioner was fully aware of dismissal of EP, but having a second thought, filed this petition with false allegations.

5. After hearing both parties, the execution Court dismissed the petition not believing the reason stated by the petitioner for the delay. The execution Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Basawaraj and Others vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2014 (1) ALD 33 (SC) on the preposition that the court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds.

6. Having aggrieved by the order impugned in the revision, this petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the lack of knowledge of the petitioner about the order of dismissal of EP, the reason for not being able to continue with the pending execution petition is that the schedule property was classified as government land, however by virtue of the order dated 26.03.2014 in W.P. No. 7498 of 2005 filed by the father of the decree holders, by name Ansuri Veerraju, the Government has removed from the classification as poramboku land and converted the property as patta land and till that time the decree could not be enforced for execution of the registered sale deed, even by the execution court. Since this fact has not been stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, or during the hearing of the petition in November, 2017, the execution Court had no opportunity to consider it in the order.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that court noted in the decree in the present suit O.S. No. 191 of 1997 that in view of the memo filed by both parties stating that the defendant is giving up defence, the suit was decreed for specific performance, but she did not execute the registered sale deed and made the decree holders to approach the execution court. He further submitted that the fact that she has filed compromise memo giving up defence in O.S. No. 191 of 1997 was recorded in point no. 11 in the decree dated 03.09.1997 passed on compromise in the connected suit O.S. No. 236 of 1996 before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in which the 1st plaintiff is the 1st JDr herein and the 1st defendant is the 1st DHr herein.

9. Order XXI Rule 105(2) CPC, by an amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977, enables execution Court to dismiss an execution petition for want of prosecution by the DHr. Order 21 Rule 106(1) enables the execution court to set a