JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, vide his order dated August 4, 1981 for setting aside the trial court's order dated January 14, 1981. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Bhopal Singh filed a suit under Section 209 of Act of 1951 against Kishan and others. The suit was decreed on March 20, 1972. Against that an appeal was filed which was also dismissed on April 2, 1973. An application for execution of the decree was moved on January 28, 1980. This application was moved with delay but the trial court condoned the delay by imposing Rs. 50/- as costs. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the provisions contained in Section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable in respect to execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that taking a lenient view of the matter the delay in filing the application for execution was condoned by the trial court and no error of law has been committed by the trial court. 5. I am not inclined to accept the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- "5. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." From this is it is evident that the provisions contained in Section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable in respect of the applications moved under any provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the instant case the application for execution of the decree was moved on January 28, 1980 for executing the decree which was affirmed on February 24, 1973. Obviously, the application was highly time-barred. An application has been moved before this Court in view of the decision reported in AIR 1926 Allahabad 345, the application could be considered. I find that this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Obviously, the application was highly time-barred. An application has been moved before this Court in view of the decision reported in AIR 1926 Allahabad 345, the application could be considered. I find that this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the order of the trial court dated January 14, 1981 is set aside.