Judgment :- 1. This memorandum of civil revision is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 09.09.2005 and made in E.P.No.46 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1990, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Harur. 2. It is manifested from the records that the respondent Bank had filed the suit in O.S.No.30 of 1990 against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,139.35. A decree was passed in that suit on 20.02.1992. On the strength of the decree, the respondent Bank has filed an execution petition in E.P.No.246 of 1996. Subsequently, the execution petition in E.P.No.246 of 1996 was closed on 16.09.1997 and thereafter the present execution petition in E.P.No.46 of 2005 was filed on 14.02.2005 after the expiry of the statutory period of 12 years. 3. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the decree was passed on 20.02.1992 and the present execution petition in E.P.No.46 of 2005 was filed only on 14.02.2005 i.e., after a period of 13 years. It should have been filed on or before 19.02.2004. 4. The learned counsel has contended further that the execution petition should have been taken out on or before 19.02.2004. But, it was filed only on 14.02.2005, which is beyond the prescribed period of 12 years. 5. Further, Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also maintained that the filing of the earlier execution petition in E.P.No.246 of 1996, which was closed on 16.09.1997, will not give any new lease for the decree holder being the respondent to file an another execution petition beyond the statutory period of 12 years. This cannot be considered as a step-in-aid for presenting the execution petition beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, he has urged this Court that the impugned Order passed by the executing Court might be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. This cannot be considered as a step-in-aid for presenting the execution petition beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, he has urged this Court that the impugned Order passed by the executing Court might be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. He has argued that since the earlier execution petition in E.P.No.246 of 1996 was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and it was closed on 16.09.1997, the closure of earlier execution petition would give entitlement for the respondent to file the second execution petition and even though it was filed beyond the statutory period of 12 years, it cannot be considered that it was actually filed beyond the period of limitation as the respondent had already started to execute the decree. 8. But, this contention is not discernible and liable to be discarded. 9. Keeping in view of the grounds of the revision petition and since the present execution petition in E.P.No.46 of 2005 appears to have been filed beyond the period of 12 years, the executing Court ought to have considered this fact prior to passing of the Order and therefore the Order passed by the executing Court is suffered from infirmity and hence liable to be set aside as it is non-est in law. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the fair and decretal Order dated 09.09.2005 and made in E.P.No.46 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1990, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Harur is set aside and the execution petition E.P.No.46 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1990 is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.