JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 06.07.2019 in E.A. No. 3078 of 2019 in E.P. No. 1950 of 2006 in O.S. No. 6686 of 1996 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in E.A. No. 3078 of 2019 in E.P. No. 1950 of 2006 in O.S. No. 6686 of 1996 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, by order dated 06.07.2019.

2. Before the Execution Court, the first and second respondents herein, who are the decree holders, had filed E.P. No. 1950 of 2006. Though the said EP was filed in the year 2006, after nearly a decade, no progress could be made in the said EP, in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court. However, at one point of time, i.e., on 07.02.2017, when the EP came up for hearing, the learned Judge had passed an order stating that, the EP is pending from the year 2006, in spite of several opportunities given neither the decree holders nor the judgment debtors and their counsel appeared, on verification of Hon'ble High Court, Case Status Information System, no data is found, EP is pending more than ten years without any progression, decree holders have no interest to proceed the EP, hence the EP is closed.

3. Since the EP was closed accordingly, after sometime the present E.A i.e., E.A. No. 3078 of 2018 was filed, just to restore the EP which was closed on 07.02.2017, by the first and second respondents herein, who are the decree holders and the petitioners in the execution proceedings. The said application, after having been considered, was allowed by the Execution Court through the impugned order dated 06.07.2019, aggrieved over the same, the second and third respondents in the EP proceedings, who are the judgment debtors have filed this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners made submissions stating that, though the EP came to an end by the order of closure made by the Execution Court on 07.02.2017, it's effect is dismissal and if at all, the EP is dismissed, which shall be construed only as dismissal that too in the absence of the parties, under Order XXI Rule 105 of the Civil Procedure Code. In that case, no doubt, the petitioners can restore the EP by setting aside the dismissal order for which, a petition can be filed under Order XXI Rule 106 of Civil Procedure Code, of course, within the limitation period of thirty days as has been contemplated under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of Civil Procedure Code.

5. He would further submit that, here in the case in hand, the decree holders have filed the said E.A. No. 3078 of 2018, invoking Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and not under Order XXI Rule 106 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby avoiding the petition to condone the delay to be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as enabled / contemplated under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of Civil Procedure Code. However, the learned Judge of the Execution Court without having considered the said defects, since have allowed the EA through the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that, the said order is infirm and cannot be sustained, therefore, in order to revise the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. Per contra, Mr. G. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein, who are the decree holders and the petitioners in the execution proceedings submitted that, the learned Judge has not dismissed the said EP, as the very order passed on 07.02.2017 has disclosed this factor to state that, the EP was closed.

7. Once the EP is closed, it can only be presumed that, for whatever reasons the EP is closed, within a period for execution of the decree, the said EP can very well be restored by filing a formal petition and that has been adopted by the respondents / decree holders in filing the present EA under Sectio