JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Mettur, dated 31.01.2011 made in E.A.No.134/2008 in E.P.No.39/2007 in MCOP No.29/2000, wherein and whereby, the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1863 to condone the delay of 274 days in filing the Application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC was rejected. 2. It is seen that in MCOP No.29/2000, an award came to be passed on 16.11.2006 against the petitioner herein, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,000/- as compensation to the respondents herein/claimants. As the said award amount was not paid by the petitioner, the respondents herein filed E.P.No.39/2007 for realisation of the said sum. In the said EP, an order of attachment came to be passed on 21.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 274 days in filing the Application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC to set aside the said order of attachment. The court below has rejected the said application on the main ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1863 is not applicable to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The court below has also found that there was no sufficient reason shown for condoning the delay of 274 days. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side. 4. In this case, the petitioner herein filed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of the delay of 274 days in filing the application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC to set aside the order of attachment dated 21.06.2007. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application shows that the petitioner has taken steps to file an appeal against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.29/2000 dated 16.11.2006. It is also seen that they have also deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-on 30.07.2007, subsequent to the award passed. It is also seen that they have also further deposited the award amount into the court on 03.10.2007 after deducting the income tax payable in this aspect. It is also seen that they have also deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-on 30.07.2007, subsequent to the award passed. It is also seen that they have also further deposited the award amount into the court on 03.10.2007 after deducting the income tax payable in this aspect. Thus it is stated that the entire award amount less TDS has been deposited in the court on 03.10.2007. It is further stated in the affidavit that the EP notice had reached the Head Office belatedly due to administrative reasons and only when the Head Office informed about the order of attachment, they have chosen to file the present application with the delay. The court below, while considering the said application, has not considered any of the reasons stated in the affidavit while rejecting the said application, except by observing that the petitioner did not furnish convincing reason for rejecting the application. Such a vague observation by the court below, without reference to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, is not sustainable. At any event, the court below has chosen to reject the application mainly on the reason that the same is not maintainable under section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the said provision under the Limitation Act, is not applicable to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 106b CPC. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed a decision of the learned Judge of this court made in N.Rajendran Vs. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager/Foreman Tiruvarur reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 12 , wherein a similar issue was considered as to whether the court below can reject any application as not maintainable on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to execution proceedings. The Learned Judge has extensively considered this issue and by relying on various provisions under the Civil Procedure Code as well as the decisions of this court, found that the order refusing to entertain the application on the ground that it was filed beyond 30 days and there was no power to entertain the same is not in accordance with law. There also the court below has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order. There also the court below has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte order. The court below therein rejected the said application by holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to execution proceedings. By applying the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the same squarely covers the issue on hand and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in so far their contention with regard to the maintainability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Execution proceedings is concerned. 6. As I already pointed out, the court below has not given any valid reason for rejecting the application without referring to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit. I find that the same is not sustainable. The fact remains that the entire award amount less TDS has already been deposited in the court below by the petitioner. Therefore, sustaining the order of attachment may not be just and proper. At any event, it is for the court to consider the said issue by considering the application filed under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC. Consequently E.A.No.134/2008 is liable to be allowed by setting aside the order of the court below made therein. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the court below is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.134 of 2008 is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.