ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. These two civil revision petitions arose out of execution proceedings in E.P. No. 53 of 2014 launched by the respondents seeking execution of a decree for possession and mandatory injunction.

2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 2006 seeking following prayers:-

"(i) by directing the defendant to handover vacant possession of about 158 Sq. ft., measuring 4- ft., 10- inches East to West to a length of 33½ ft., being a Western end portion of Item 2 shown as Item 2 in 'B' schedule hereunder.

(ii) directing the defendant to remove the encroachment of an extent of about 8..... ft. X 17 ft., at the Western end of the 8- ft., passage and the septic tank at the Eastern end of the 8- ft. Passage, and also all other name boards, hanging wires, iron gates shown as Item 1 in 'B' schedule hereunder.

(iii) grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from causing any obstruction or construction in any manner in the 8- ft. passage in between Item 1 and 2 of 'A' schedule running to a length of 95 ft. leading to TH Road on the East.

(iv) pass such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. The said suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 09.09.2009 as prayed for. An application in I.A. No. 944 of 2010 was filed by the defendant seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. It is now claimed that the said application was withdrawn, since the execution petition filed by the decree holder in E.P. No. 53 of 2010 was withdrawn. It is claimed that there was some sort of an understanding between the parties regarding the enjoyment of the suit properties. The petitioner herein namely, the judgment debtor would also claim that the decree holder filed the second EP in E.P. No. 53 of 2014 contrary to the said arrangement seeking arrest of the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 32 of C.P.C., complaining of disobedience of the decree for permanent injunction. It is the further claim of the judgment debtor that the decree holder gave a wrong address in the execution petition and took steps for service by publication.

4. Pursuant to the publication, the judgment debtor was set ex parte on 31.01.2017. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application in E.A. No. 105 of 2017 seeking amendment of the execution petition to incorporate the following prayer:-

"(i) by issuing a warrant for delivery of vacant possession of Item 1 of 'B' schedule property.

(ii) by issuing a warrant for the removal of whatever encroachment made in Item 1 in the 'B' schedule property."

5. This application for amendment was filed on 10.07.2017. Since the petitioner herein, the judgment debtor, had contended that no notice of the amendment application was served on him, I had called for the records. The records reveal that the contention of the judgment debtor is true. The order passed in I.A. No. 105 of 2017 namely, the amendment application, which seeks to alter the reliefs sought for in the execution petition from one for arrest to one for possession of immovable property, reads as follows:-

"Heard, respondent set ex parte in the main execution petition. Hence, notice to respondent is dispensed. The petitioner's side heard. Consequently, this petition is allowed. No costs."

Upon this order being passed the executing Court had adjourned the execution petition for carrying out amendment and filing of amended petition."

6. It was at this stage, the petitioner herein had filed two applications in E.A. Nos. 153 & 154 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte orders passed in the execution petition and ex parte order passed in E.A. No. 105 of 2017. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned in these revisions had dismissed E.A. Nos. 153 & 154 of 2017 on the ground that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked in an application seeking to set aside the ex parte order made in execution proceedings. Aggrieved the judgment debtor has come up