1. The civil revision petition arises out of the refusal of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur, to entertain an application to condone the delay of 10 days in seeking to set aside the exparte order of attachment.

2. Heard Mr.N.S.Siva Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ravishankar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent obtained an ex parte award on 17.7.2008 in ARC No.44 of 2006 filed under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act. One Mr.D.Selvaraj, who was the first defendant in those arbitration proceedings, was the borrower and three persons, by name Balashanmugam, Rajendran and Krishnamurthy were the Guarantors. Mr.N.Rajendran who was one of the Guarantors, is the petitioner herein.

4. The respondent herein, the award holder, filed E.P.No.70 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur, for executing the award. The executing Court set the petitioner ex parte and ordered attachment of the salary on 14.7.2010.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application in unnumbered E.A.No.__ of 2010 seeking condonation of the delay of 10 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner filed the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. After referring to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order XXI, Rule 106, CPC, the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, rejected the unnumbered application as not maintainable, on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no application to execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above revision.

7. Relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Devendra Kumar v. Jaidayal [AIR 1981 MP 160] and the decision of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch.Krishnaiah v. Ch.Prasada Rao [2010 (2) CTC 225], it is contended by Mr.N.Siva Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the Madras (Pondicherry) High Court Amendment to Order XXI, a power to condone the delay is conferred upon the Executing Court under the proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 105 (as it existed earlier) of Order XXI. This Madras High Court Amendment, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was not repealed by successive amendments in the years 1976, 1999 and 2002 to the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In response to the above contention, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Madras High Court Amendments to the Code, made before 1976, stood repealed in view of the statutory provisions. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the issue is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Natarajan, N.M. v. Deivayanai Ammal [1989 (1) LW 178] and the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in M.Ponnupandian v. Selvabakiyam & Others [2003 (4) LW 48]. The learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 300], in support of his contention that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to execution proceedings.

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. But, in order to understand the scope of the legal issue raised in this revision, it is necessary for us to travel back in point of time, by about a few decades and trace the historical developments.

10. The Code of Civil Procedure, as it originally was, comprised of several parts. The first Part, which is commonly known as "the Sections Part", comprised of Sections 1 to 158. The second Part comprised of a set of Rules under different Orders and is captioned as The First Schedule. The third Part comprised of Schedules II, III, IV and V, all of which were repealed at various points of time under different enactments in 1940, 1956, 1952 and 1914 respectively. To the second Part comprising of the First Schedule, innumerable forms were attached as Appendices A