Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The revision petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 183/89 of the Sub Court, Sripilli Puthur Tamil Nadu, which is pending in execution in the Sub Court Trivandrum as E.P. No. 387/93, is aggrieved by the order passed by the said execution court restoring the E.P. which had been dismissed for default. 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the E.P. had been dismissed on 30.9.96 and only on 13.2.1997 the request for restoration was made and the time had run out in the meantime. The contention of the respondent is that the dismissal was only ministerial in nature and that the Court was bound to restore it as and when the bar which lead to the dismissal was found to be nonexistent. It is also pointed out that the dismissal itself was in violation of the provisions in R.35 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Learned counsel also placed reliance on relevant case law on the point. 3. The reason for dismissal of the E.P. on 30.9.1996 was an injunction obtained by the judgment debtor's brother against the continuance of the execution. Even if there was a bar for the continuance of the execution proceedings brought in through the injunction, the execution court, by virtue of the provisions in R.35 of the Civil Rules of Practice, was bound to adjourn the case to a suitable date awaiting further orders and should not have proceeded to strike it off. R.35 of the Civil Rules of Practice is clear in the matter. It reads as follows: "(1) No suit, appeal, matter or proceeding shall, under any circumstances whatever, be adjourned sine the or struck off file, and if by inadvertence, a day certain for the further hearing is not fixed by the Court or a case is ordered to be struck off the file, the case shall be posted and taken up for hearing, with the least possible delay, after notifying on the Court's notice board and giving notice to the pleaders, if any, appearing in the case: Provided that in a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree has been passed, the Court may adjourn the proceedings sine the, with liberty to any of the parties to whom shares have been allotted to apply for the passing of a final decree. (2) All stayed cases shall be adjourned from time to time to certain dates and the presiding officers shall personally satisfy themselves that the stay is in operation each time they adjourn the cases." 4. The decisions in Narayana Kurup Krishna Kurup v. Kunjan Krishnan Kurup (1954 KLT 905), Korah Kurlakose v. Chacko Joseph (1958 KLT 322) and Perunial Narayani v. Velayudhan Ramakrishnan (1965 KLT 759 (FB)) are clear in the matter that dismissal of E.P. based on interim orders or other similar reasons will be only ministerial in nature and the Court will be bound to take back the case to its file once the disability ceases. As long as the dismissal is not judicial; but only ministerial as happens in the present case, the E.P. will be deemed to be pending and it could be proceeded with by the execution court at any time when the supervening embargo in the matter of continuance of the E.P. is reported non-existent. Viewed from this perspective the impugned order does not suffer from any material defect. Even otherwise by virtue of S.15(1) of the Limitation Act, the Court below had the power to exclude the time during which the injunction obtained by the judgment debtor's brother which created a bar in the continuance of the execution was in force and to restore the E.P. In the circumstances, the impugned order is found to be proper. The revision is dismissed.