R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By these two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (original decree holder) has impugned the order dated 12th June, 2014 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing Miscellaneous Application No.161 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in Regular Darkhast No.5 of 1995 in Regular Civil Suit No.292 of 1983 and the order dated 12th June, 2014 passed by the same Judge dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing Miscellaneous Application No.159 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in Regular Darkhast No.40 of 1996 in Regular Civil Suit No.998 of 1988. Though the respondent has been served pursuant to the order dated 2nd July, 2015 passed by this Court intimating that these petitions would be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, the respondents have chosen to remain absent when the matters were called out. No affidavit in reply has been filed. Both the writ petitions were thus heard finally at the admission stage and are being disposed of by a common order. The facts of both these writ petitions being identical, this Court shall deal with the facts and submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5896 of 2015. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions are as under :

2. In the year 1983, the petitioner had filed two separate suits before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane for declaration and possession of the suit property. This petition is arising out of the application for condonation of delay in seeking restoration of the execution application dismissed by the learned Executing Court in Regular Civil Suit No.292 of 1983.

3. On 30th June, 1992, the learned Trial Judge passed a decree after hearing the petitioner and examining the evidence on record in favour of the petitioner. Some time in the year 1995, the petitioner filed an execution application seeking execution of the said decree dated 30th June, 1992 before the Executing Court. On 2nd April, 2004, the said execution application came to be dismissed for default on the ground "no steps have been taken for prosecution as such the said Darkhast stands disposed of as dismissed. The petitioner filed an application on 24th March, 2008 inter-alia praying for restoration of the Regular Darkhast before the Executing Court and also applied for condonation of delay in filing the said application for restoration. There was delay of about three years three months and 23 days in filing such application for restoration of the execution application .

4. By an order dated 12th June, 2014, the Executing Court dismissed the said application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 12th June, 2014 in this writ petition. Similar order is passed by the Executing Court on the same date which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.5897 of 2025.

5. Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the various annexures to the writ petition including the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of execution application, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court thereon, the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application for default on the ground that no steps were taken.

6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that when the execution application was dismissed by the Executing Court, the matter was not listed for hearing of the said execution application. The said application was not dismissed under Order XXI Rule 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"). The provisions of Order XXI Rule 106 of CPC and more particularly Rule 106(3) of CPC were not applicable in these situation. He submits that the period of 30 days provided under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of C