This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.10.2012, passed in E.A.No.17 of 2011 in E.A.No.14 of 2006 in E.P.No.322 of 2003, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.

2. The petitioner is the second respondent in E.A.No.17 of 2011 in E.A.No.14 of 2006 in E.P. No. 322 of 2003 in O.S.No.332 of 2001. The first respondent filed the said E.A. No.17 of 2011 against the respondents 2 to 5 and the petitioner. The said E.A. was allowed. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The first respondent filed O.S.No.332 of 2001 against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed on 18.12.2002. The first respondent filed E.P.No.322 of 2003 to sell the property mentioned therein to realize the decreetal amount. The property was ordered to be sold and one A.P. Nachi Muthu was the successful bidder in the public auction held on 27.12.2004. The sale was confirmed on 05.08.2005 and as per the order of the Court, he took possession on 10.08.2005.

4. The second respondent filed E.A.No.14 of 2006 to set aside the Court auction sale held on 27.12.2004. According to the second respondent, the property sold in Court auction was mortgaged to them by deposit of title deeds. The borrowers did not pay the amounts due. The second respondent had taken symbolic possession of the property by following the procedure contemplated in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The second respondent had also taken proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Suppressing the fact that the second respondent is having a paramount first charge, the property was sold in Court auction. Notice was ordered to the first respondent, the petitioner and A.P. Nachi Muthu. Pending the said E.A., A.P. Nachi Muthu died and the respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as respondents. The respondents 1, 3 to 5 and the petitioner did not file any counter and the said E.A. was ordered on 08.01.2008.

5. The first respondent filed E.A.No.17 of 2011 to set aside the order, dated 08.01.2008. According to the first respondent, without notice to them, without giving opportunity to file counter and to let in evidence, an ex- parte order was passed on 08.01.2008. The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter and prayed for dismissal of the said E.A. The petitioner filed memo and submitted that E.A.No.17 of 2011 filed by the first respondent after three years and three months, is not maintainable, as the first respondent has filed the said E.A. without filing an application to condone the delay. Further, the legal heirs of auction purchaser filed E.A.No.177 of 2008 to condone the delay of 73 days in filing application to set aside the order dated 08.01.2008 and the said E.A. was dismissed.

6. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, after considering all the materials on record, allowed E.A.No.17 of 2011 holding that no opportunity was given to the first respondent to file counter. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has also held that as per Proviso to Order 21 Rule 105(3) by Madras High Court Amendment, the Executing Court has power to condone the delay in filing applications under Order 21 Rule 105(1) C.P.C.

7. Against the said order dated 04.10.2012, passed in E.A.No.17 of 2011, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge failed to see that E.A.No.17 of 2011 filed by the first respondent is barred by limitation. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge ought to have seen that the earlier application filed by the respondents 3 to 5 was dismissed and the learned Additional Subordinate Judge failed to take note of subsequent events. He further submitted that the first respondent/decree-holder has no independent right to maintain E.A. No.17 of 2011 and their only interest is to recover the decreetal amount a