These Revisions have been preferred by the petitioner/decree holder against the dismissal of E.A.No.464 of 2007 seeking for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing the application to restore the execution petition and also against the dismissal of E.A.No.465 of 2007 filed to restore E.P.40 of 1992 to the file, respectively.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was the decree holder in O.S.No.170 of 1983 and he had obtained a decree in his favour on 13. 1988. The appeal preferred by the respondent before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.34 of 1990 was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Similarly, the second appeal preferred by the respondent/judgment debtor in S.A.No.236 of 1992 was also dismissed and decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed and accordingly, execution petition was filed by the revision petitioner/decree holder in E.P.No.40 of 1992. But, the said E.P.No.40 of 1992 was dismissed by the Execution Court on 31.07.