JUDGMENT : Thomas P. Joseph, J. Petitioner is the third judgment debtor in E.P.No.59 of 2011 in O.S.No.123 of 2000 of Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. An ex-parte decree was passed against petitioner and others restraining them from widening the road making use of any portion of plaint A schedule. Alleging that petitioner and others violated the decree, respondents filed E.P.No.59 of 2011. Petitioner and other judgment debtors remained absent. The executing court passed Ext.P2, order on 04.09.2012 holding that they have violated the decree. 2. Petitioner filed Ext.P4, application to set aside Ext.P2, order. That application was dismissed as time barred. Hence this original petition. 3. Learned counsel submits that invoking the power under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and Sec.5 of the Limitation Act (for short, “the Act”), executing court could have entertained Ext.P4, application. 4. I cannot accept the contention. Under Rule 106(3) of Order XXI of the Code time provided for an application to set aside an ex-parte order is only 30 days from the date of the order or, if a party applying to set aside the ex-parte order was not aware of the order, from the date of knowledge of the order. Petitioner has a case that he had no knowledge about Ext.P2, order. He was served in E.P.No.59 of 2011 and remained absent. Even thereafter, petitioner was brought before the executing Court. 5. Since Rule 106(3) of Order XXI of the Code prescribes the period within which an application to set aside the ex-parte order is to be made, question of invoking power under Sec.151 of the Code and on the face of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, applying that provision do not arise. It follows that Ext.P4, application filed on 19.01.2013 is barred by limitation and hence could not be entertained. 6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is desirous of settling the dispute with the respondent. It is also submitted that warrant of arrest is issued to the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the request made by the learned counsel, I am inclined to direct that execution of warrant against petitioner will stand in abeyance till 13.03.2012 subject to condition. Resultantly this original petition is dismissed. It is also submitted that warrant of arrest is issued to the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the request made by the learned counsel, I am inclined to direct that execution of warrant against petitioner will stand in abeyance till 13.03.2012 subject to condition. Resultantly this original petition is dismissed. But it is directed that warrant for arrest of petitioner will stand in abeyance till 13.03.2013 on condition that petitioner files an affidavit in the executing court within a week from this day undertaking to appear before the executing court on 13.03.2013 at 11 a.m and does so.