B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 31st January, 2017 by which the Executing Court overruled the objections raised by the judgment writer with regard to maintainability and held that the execution petition filed is maintainable before the Court at Davangere and the decree-holder was given liberty to proceed with the case and the order dated 10.3.2017 rejecting I.A. No.2 filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for review of the order dated 31.1.2017.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.62/2011 against the present judgment-debtor/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the defendant has purchased the suit schedule property in public auction held by the Union Bank of India, Davangere and negotiated to sell the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs keeping in faith in defendant negotiated to purchase suit schedule property from the defendant. The sale negotiation was held on 2.1.2008 and the sale price of the suit schedule property was fixed at Rs. 36,75,000/- and the plaintiff accepted to purchase the suit schedule property and paid advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant on 2.1.2008 and the sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 16.1.2008 at Chitradurga. It is further contended that in spite of repeated requests, the defendant has not executed the sale deed on the ground that the Union Bank of India has not granted permission to execute the sale deed. Therefore the plaintiffs filed the suit. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the entire plaint averments. After contest, the trial Court by the judgment & decree dated 25.1.2016 decreed the suit with costs and directed the defendant to refund earnest amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of entire decretal amount.

3. Against the said judgment & decree, defendant filed RFA No.882/2016 before this Court. This Court while admitting the appeal, stayed the impugned judgment & decree subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount within four weeks from the date of the order. Admittedly the interim order was not complied by the defendant. Therefore the interim order shall not come in the way to protect the defendant since he has failed to comply the conditional order. The interim order automatically stood vacated since it was a conditional order.

4. Thereafter the decree holders/plaintiffs filed Execution No.79/2016 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Davangere to execute the decree. The judgment-debtor/defendant filed objections to the said Execution Petition contending that the Executing Court at Davangere has no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution and raised maintainability of the execution petition at Davangere. The Executing Court by its order dated 31.1.2017 overruled the objections raised by the judgment-debtor/defendant and held that the execution petition filed in the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Davangere is maintainable and reserved liberty to the decree-holders/plaintiffs to proceed with the case.

5. Thereafter the judgment-debtor/defendant filed I.A. No.2 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the order dated 31.1.2017 contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the trial Court has not considered the fact of insertion of sub-section (4) of section 39 of CPC by Act No.22/2002 w.e.f 1.7.2002. The said application was resisted by the decree-holders/plaintiffs. Ultimately the trial Court by the order dated 10.3.2017 rejected the said application. Hence the present writ petitions are filed by the judgment-debtor/defendant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

7. Sri Giridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment-debtor contended that the impugned orders date