Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Hem Pratap Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Om Prakash, holding brief of Sri Satish Mandhyan, for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 31.8.2015, setting aside the order of dismissal in default, condoning the delay and restoring Execution Case No. 1 of 2004 to its original number and order of Additional District Judge dated 2.11.2015 dismissing the revision of the petitioner, against the aforesaid order.

3. Narendra Kumar Sharma (now represented by the petitioners) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 1495 of 1994) for permanent injunction restraining his father Nand Kishore Sharma (now represented by the respondents), from ejecting him from the disputed house, claiming that it was joint family property. Nand Kishore Sharma filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 293 of 1995) for ejectment of Narendra Kumar Sharma, claiming that disputed house was his self acquired property. Both the suits were consolidated and heard together. Trial Court, by judgment dated 28.2.2001, decreed O.S. No. 293 of 1995 and dismissed O.S. No. 1495 of 1994. Decrees of Trial Court were challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 168 and 176 of 2001, which were dismissed by a common judgment dated 29.10.2003. The petitioners filed Second Appeal Nos. 1325 and 1334 of 2003, from the aforesaid decrees, which were dismissed on 15.5.2006.

4. Nand Kishore Sharma died on 4.1.2002 and the respondents were substituted as his heirs, on the basis of his will. The respondents filed an application (registered as Execution Case No. 1 of 2004) for execution of decree of ejectment dated 28.2.2001. Narendra Kumar Sharma filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 16/74/2006) under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., which was dismissed by Executing Court by order dated 4.9.2009. Narendra Kumar Sharma died on 19.10.2009. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Misc. Case No. 2/7/2010) under Section 47 C.P.C., which was dismissed by Executing Court by order dated 7.10.2010. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2010) from the order dated 7.10.2010, which was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2010. The petitioners filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-C No. 74825 of 2010) against the orders dated 7.10.2010 and 23.11.2010. Initially this Court passed an interim order dated 22.12.2010, in this writ petition. Later on, writ petition was dismissed in default, by order dated 3.12.2014. The petitioners have filed an application (registered as Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 60744 of 2014), for recalling the order dated 3.12.2014, which is pending.

5. Execution Case No. 1 of 2004 was dismissed in default on 15.10.2011. The respondents filed an application dated 17.4.2014 (registered as Misc. Case No. 19/74/13 of 2014) for recall of the order dated 15.10.2011, alongwith delay condonation application. The petitioners contested the recall application and filed their objection. Additional Civil Judge (SD) by his order dated 31.8.2015, held that High Court in Writ-C No. 74825 of 2010, by order dated 22.12.2010, stayed eviction of the petitioners, from the disputed house. This order was operative till 3.12.2014. The order of dismissal of Execution Case No. 1 of 2004 on 15.10.2011 was illegal. On these findings, he condoned the delay, allowed recall application, set aside order dated 15.10.2011 and restored Execution Case No. 1 of 2004. The petitioners challenged aforesaid order in Civil Revision No. 217 of 2015, which was dismissed by order dated 2.11.2015, summarily. Hence this petition has been filed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recall application was filed under Order 21 Rule 106 C.P.C. Order 21 Rule 106 (3) C.P.C. prescribes 30 days limitation, from the date of the order for filing recall application. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has not been applied, nor the Court is giv