C.R.P.Nos.1376 and 1377 of 2011 are filed by the defendant/Judgment debtor as against the order of delivery made in E.A.No.3 of 2011 on 28.03.2011 and the order allowing E.A.No.4 of 2011 respectively, thereby restoring E.A.No.3 of 2011 (E.A.No.188 of 2002) that came to be dismissed for default on 18.06.2008 by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore.

2. C.R.P. No. 590 of 2011 is filed by the defendant/Judgment debtor as against the order of closure of the execution petition in E.A.No.126 of 1994 dated 05.04.2002 by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore.

3. Though separate orders are being passed in the above execution petition and execution applications, the issue involved in this Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, arising out of E.P.No.126 of 1994. Therefore, this court hereby passes a common order in respect of the above CRPs.

4. The unsuccessful defendant Govindaraj in Arbitration Case No.83 of 1993 is the revision petitioner in all the three Civil Revision Petitions. Originally the 2nd respondent herein namely Thirumalai Chit Funds filed Arbitration Case No.83 of 1993 against the revision petitioner for recovery of chit amount due to the chit fund. In the said arbitration case, award was passed against this revision petitioner on 30.03.1994. Apart from the said Arbitration Case in case No.83 of 1993, two other Arbitration Cases No.82 and 84 also came to be filed against the revision petitioner and in which award was passed against the revision petitioner on 30.03.1994. However, it is found that all these civil revisions are filed as against the Arbitration Award made in Arbitration Case No.83 of 1993 and the corresponding executive petition in E.P.No.126 of 1994.

5. It is evident from records that as against the said Arbitration Award the revision petitioner herein has not filed any appeal proceedings challenging the Arbitration Award. Hence the Arbitration Award passed against the revision petitioner became final. Whereupon to realize the Award amount, the 2nd respondent herein filed execution petition in E.P.No.126 of 1994 before the Sub-Court, Vellore, for attachment and sale of the schedule mentioned properties of the revision petitioner, so as to satisfy the Award. The revision petitioner however remained exparte and accordingly was set exparte in the execution proceedings and finally the property was found to be attached on 23.04.1995. Thereafter the subject property was put on court auction on 08.02.2002, wherein the 1st respondent herein purchased the property under the Court Auction Sale and in consequence the sale was confirmed on 05.04.2002 and thereby the execution petition itself was closed by the Executing Court.

6. Furthermore the records discloses that after confirmation of the said sale, the 1st respondent herein who is the court auction purchaser filed E.A.No.188 of 2002 before the Sub-Court Vellore for delivery of possession. The said E.A. was dismissed for default on 18.06.2008. Thereupon to restore the E.A.No.188 of 2002 (E.A.No.3 of 2011), the Court auction purchaser/1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.143 of 2008 (E.A. No. 4 of 2011) before the Sub-court, Vellore on 10.07.2008. For want of Jurisdiction, the above said execution application in E.A.No.188 of 2002 and E.A.No.143 of 2008 were transferred from the file of Sub-Court, Vellore to the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore and renumbered and taken on file as E.A.No.3 of 2011 and E.A.No.4 of 2011. Both the execution applications were tried together, whereas separate order was passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.

7. The said execution applications were resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that E.A.No.4 of 2011 (earlier E.A.No.143 of 2008) is barred by limitation. The main objection raised by the revision petitioner to dismiss the said execution application is that he has filed a suit in O.S. No.1075 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Vellore to set aside the auction sale conducted vide