1. This application is filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1121 days in filing the revision petition challenging the order dated 20.08.2010 in the Execution Petition No. 53/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Bagalkot.

2. The affidavit subjoined with the application is sworn to by the 1st petitioner. He tries to explain the delay by giving following reasons:

(i). On 07.11.2007, the respondent initiated execution proceeding, which was numbered as E.P.No.53/2007. He and other petitioners, who are the judgment debtors in the execution case, did not receive the notice issued to them, as they were issued to the wrong addresses in spite of the fact that the respondent/decree holder knew their correct addresses. Thereafter, the respondent, on 30.05.2009, made an application seeking substituted service on them by way of paper publication in a local newspaper “Vidyamana” instead of getting the notice published in newspaper like “Vijaya Karnataka” or “Samyukta Karnataka” or “Prajavani” having wide circulation. As a result, they did not come to know about the execution case and therefore, they could not appear before the executing court.

(ii). They had filed a writ petition, W.P. No.77106/2013, before this court. This court dismissed the said writ petition on 28.08.2013 as not maintainable. The petitioners wanted to challenge this order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but their counsel advised them that they should better challenge the two orders dated 04.08.2010 and 20.08.2010 passed in the execution case by filing a revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C..

3. The respondent has filed statement of objections contending mainly that the petitioners were fully aware of the proceedings before the executing court. Notice was ordered to the petitioners, in the first instance, by the executing court. Since the petitioners could not be served with notice in ordinary course, the respondent/decree holder made an application seeking service of notice by way of substituted service. The newspaper “Vidyamana” has a wide circulation in the place where the petitioners are residing. When the petitioners did not appear even after publication of notice in the newspaper, executing court proceeded further to get the lease deed executed and registered through process of court by appointing a court commissioner and that ultimately on 20.08.2010, execution petition was closed for full satisfaction. It is further contended that the petitioners filed W.P.No.77106/2013 in relation to order passed by the executing court on 04.08.2010. That writ petition was not filed in relation to order dated 20.08.2010. On 04.08.2010, the executing court directed the commissioner to get the lease deed registered. On 20.08.2010, the executing court closed the execution petition for full satisfaction. Therefore, those two orders are different. The petitioners cannot take advantage of a writ petition filed in relation to order dated 04.08.2010. It is also stated in the objection statement that the petitioners have not disclosed the date when actually they came to know about the execution proceedings. In these circumstances, the affidavit does not disclose the proper and sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Now that execution petition has been closed, revision petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay does not survive.

4. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the petitioners did not come to know about the execution petition filed against them as there was no proper service of notice on them. He also argued that the suit was one for specific performance in relation to contract of lease. When the respondent submitted the draft of the lease deed to the executing court, it was necessary that notice, as required under Order XXI Rule 34 C.P.C. should have been issued again to the petitioners along with draft of the lease deed. This is a mandatory provision. Failur