THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.1593 of 2010 Dated: 07.09.2010 Between: Boya Mangappa and 2 others. … Petitioners And Boya Akkamma, Ananthapur District. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1593 of 2010 O R D E R: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2009 in E.A.No.168 of 2007 in E.P.No.18 of 2003 in O.S.No.244 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors, who suffered a decree in O.S.NO.244 of 1996. The respondent herein/decree holder filed E.P.No.18 of 2003 for execution of the decree. The said E.P. was dismissed for default on 12.03.2007 and thereafter, the decree holder/respondent herein filed an application for restoration of the E.P. along with E.A.No.168 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 172 days in filing the petition for restoration. Though the said application was opposed by the judgment debtors/revision petitioners, the Court below by order dated 06.11.2009 allowed the same on payment of costs of Rs.250/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to the proceedings under Order 21 of C.P.C., the order under revision being contrary to law, is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is no longer res integra that by virtue of Order 21 Rule 106(4) of C.P.C, as inserted by the amendment made by the High Court of A.P., the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are made applicable to the applications under Rule 106(1) (vide Sale Ranga Swamy v. Special Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer[1] and Habeeb Babu v. B.Chowdesh Busa Pedda Rangaiah[2]). Hence, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in entertaining E.A.No.168 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Act to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of E.P.No.18 of 2003. On merits, having regard to the explanation offered for the delay, the Court below though it fit to condone the same on payment of costs. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable and therefore, the interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 07.09.2010 KLP [1] 2004(2) ALT 764 [2] AIR 2009 A.P. 134