JUDGMENT Krishnan Ramasamy, J. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 25.07.2008 made in E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006 in E.P.Nos.46 to 48 of 2005 in O.S.Nos.238 to 240 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, respectively. 2. Since the parties are one and the same in all these Civil Revision Petitions, a common order is to be passed in all the petitions. 3. C.R.P.(Md)No.2396 of 2008 : 3.1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.238 of 1993 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,250.50/-, along with interest. The suit was decreed on 30.09.1993 with 22.5% interest. Subsequently, the decree holder filed E.P.No.46 of 2005 against the petitioner for the recovery of the decree amount of Rs. 29,827.75/-. Since the Judgment debtor failed to pay the decreed amount, the lower Court passed an order of arrest and directed the respondent to pay batta for arrest. The amena filed a report dated 27.03.2006 that the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Therefore, when the matter came up for hearing, the Court, upon perusal of the records, passed an order stating that the Execution Petition was closed as the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application stating that they were not able to appear on 27.03.2006 due to the reason of Advocate's boycott. Further, they have contended that the 12 years limitation period for filing appeal was already expired and therefore, they have not in a position to file fresh Execution Petition also. 3.2. The learned counsel for both the parties appeared in E.A.No.278 of 2006, admitted the fact that the Execution Petition was dismissed due to the reason of the Judgement debtor not found for arrest and hence, it was dismissed only on merit and not on default. Therefore, the Judgment debtor strongly contended that E.A.No.278 of 2006 is liable to be dismissed. 3.3. However, the lower Court without considering all these facts, allowed the application with cost and thereby restored the Execution Petition No.46 of 2006 by its order dated 25.07.2008. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.278 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2396 of 2008. 4. C.R.P.(Md)No.2397 of 2008: 4.1. However, the lower Court without considering all these facts, allowed the application with cost and thereby restored the Execution Petition No.46 of 2006 by its order dated 25.07.2008. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.278 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2396 of 2008. 4. C.R.P.(Md)No.2397 of 2008: 4.1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.239 of 1993 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,789.60/- along with interest. The suit was decreed on 30.09.1993 with 22.5% interest. Subsequently, the decree holder filed E.P.No.47 of 2005 against the petitioner for the recovery of the decree amount of Rs. 37,418/-. Since the Judgment debtor failed to pay the decreed amount, the lower Court passed an order of arrest and directed the respondent to pay batta for arrest. The Amin filed a report dated 27.03.2006 that the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Therefore, when the matter came up for hearing, the Court, upon perusal of the records, passed an order stating that the Execution Petition was closed as the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application stating that they were not able to appear on 27.03.2006 due to the reason of Advocate's boycott. Further, they have contended that the 12 years limitation period for filing appeal was already expired and therefore, they have not in a position to file fresh Execution Petition also. 4.2. The learned counsel for both the parties appeared in E.A.No.279 of 2006 and admitted the fact that the Execution Petition was dismissed due to the reason of the Judgement debtor not found for arrest and hence, it was dismissed only on merit and not on default. Therefore, the Judgment debtor strongly contended that E.A.No.279 of 2006 is liable to be dismissed. 4.3. However, the lower Court without considering all these facts, allowed the application with cost and thereby restored the Execution Petition No.47 of 2006 by its order dated 25.07.2008. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.279 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2397 of 2008. 5. C.R.P.(Md)No.2398 of 2008: 5.1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.240 of 1993 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3458.50/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.279 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2397 of 2008. 5. C.R.P.(Md)No.2398 of 2008: 5.1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.240 of 1993 against the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3458.50/- along with interest. The suit was decreed on 30.09.1993 with 22.5% interest. Subsequently, the decree holder filed E.P.No.48 of 2005 against the petitioner for the recovery of the decree amount of Rs. 13,351/-. Since the Judgment debtor failed to pay the decreed amount, the lower Court passed an order of arrest and directed the respondent to pay batta for arrest. The Amin filed a report dated 27.03.2006 that the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Therefore, when the matter came up for hearing, the Court, upon perusal of the records, passed an order stating that the Execution Petition was closed as the Judgment debtor, was not found for arrest. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application stating that they were not able to appear on 27.03.2006 due to the reason of Advocate's boycott. Further, they have contended that the 12 years limitation period for filing appeal was already expired and therefore, they have not in a position to file fresh Execution Petition also. 5.2. The learned counsel for both the parties appeared in E.A.No.280 of 2006 and admitted the fact that the Execution Petition was dismissed due to the reason of the Judgement debtor not found for arrest and hence, it was dismissed only on merit and not on default. Therefore, the Judgment debtor strongly contended that E.A.No.280 of 2006 is liable to be dismissed. 5.3. However, the lower Court without considering all these facts, allowed the application with cost and thereby restored the Execution Petition No.48 of 2006 by its order dated 25.07.2008. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.280 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2398 of 2008. 6. When these matters came up for hearing on 19.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, there was no representation for the respondent. Today also, there is no representation for the respondent. 7. Aggrieved by the above said order of the lower Court passed in E.A.No.280 of 2006, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition No.2398 of 2008. 6. When these matters came up for hearing on 19.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, there was no representation for the respondent. Today also, there is no representation for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments stating that the lower Court after dismissing the Execution Petitions on the ground of Judgement debtor not found for arrest, the lower Court allowed the application filed in E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006 for restoration of the E.P.Nos.46 to 48 of 2006, on the ground as if the Execution petitions were dismissed due to the default of non appearance of the decree holder. Hence, they filed applications for restoration to restore the Execution Petitions. However, the fact remains that as admitted by both the parties, the Execution Petition Nos.46 to 48 of 2006, were closed due to the reason that Judgment debtor not found for arrest. 8. The issue for consideration is as to whether, after closing the Execution Petitions on the ground that the Judgment debtor not found arrest, the same can be recalled? 9. The lower Court passed orders in E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006 on 25.07.2008 and closed the Execution Petitions due to reason of Judgment debtor not found for arrest. Therefore, all the Execution Petitions are closed. The lower Court in its order never mentioned about the non appearance of the parties. Therefore, the question of restoring the Execution Petitions, as if the same were dismissed for default due to the non appearance of parties, is not correct and this Court also not accept the reasons provided by the lower Court while allowing the E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the Execution Petitions are closed for the reason that the Judgment debtor is not found for arrest, which means the Execution Petitions were decided on merits and that the Execution Petitions were not closed due to the reasons of default on the non appearance of the parties. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the Execution Petitions are closed for the reason that the Judgment debtor is not found for arrest, which means the Execution Petitions were decided on merits and that the Execution Petitions were not closed due to the reasons of default on the non appearance of the parties. Under these circumstances, the lower Court ought not to have passed the order in E.A. closing the Execution Petitions, as if they were closed due to the reason for non appearance of the parties, which is contrary to the admitted fact of both the parties that the Execution Petitions were closed due to the reason the Judgment debtor not found for arrest. Hence, the Execution Petitions once closed after deciding the case on merits, the Execution Court cannot restore the same and it is improper and the only remedy available to the party is elsewhere, but not in the same Court. 11. Therefore, it is just and appropriate for this Court to invoke the Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the order passed in E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006 in E.P.Nos.46 to 48 of 2005 in O.S.Nos.238 to 240 of 1993 by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti. 12. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the order passed in E.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2006 in E.P.Nos.46 to 48 of 2005 in O.S.Nos.238 to 240 of 1993 by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.