ORDER : 1. Challenge in this civil revision petition is made to the order, dated 14.02.2007, passed in unnumbered E.A.of 2007 in E.P.No.655 of 1998 in O.S.No.1540 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli. 2. The respondent had levied the suit against the petitioner in O.S.No.1540 of 1986 as regards the subject matter for the relief of permanent injunction. It is seen that the said suit ended in an ex parte decree in favour of the respondent. Seeking to execute the said decree, the respondent had preferred an execution petition in E.P.No.655 of 1998 against the petitioner. It is noted that the petitioner had entered appearance in the execution petition and preferred his counter and thereby challenged the execution petition filed by the respondent. It is also noted that the petitioner has preferred an application in E.A.No....of 2007, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, mainly contending that the respondent is not the owner of the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the suit is only a public street vested with the petitioner and the respondent is only a trespasser and in such view of the matter, contending that the decree obtained by the respondent is in executable and accordingly, sought to cancel the same by way of filing the application, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The above said application had come to be rejected by the Court below, on the footing that the same is barred by limitation. According to the Court below, inasmuch as the petitioner had not preferred the application within a period of three years from the date of receipt of notice in the execution proceedings and only thereafter had come forward with the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accordingly holding that the application preferred by the petitioner is barred by limitation, rejected the same. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below had not gone into the merits of the application preferred by the petitioner. Per contra, it has chosen to reject the application preferred by the petitioner only on the point of limitation. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below had not gone into the merits of the application preferred by the petitioner. Per contra, it has chosen to reject the application preferred by the petitioner only on the point of limitation. According to the Court below, inasmuch as the petitioner had not preferred the application within a period of three years from the date of receipt of the notice in the execution proceeding, the application preferred by the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is hit by the law of limitation. Contending that the above said view of the Court below is not legally sustainable, the petitioner's counsel relied upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Arun Lal v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 384 . It is his argument that in the said decision, the Honourable Apex Court has held that there is no limitation prescribed for filing of objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly, it is his argument that the view taken by the Court below that the application preferred by the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is barred by limitation is legally unsustainable. 4. In the above cited decision, the Honourable Apex Court has held that there is no limitation prescribed for filing of objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the view of the Honourable Apex Court has been pointed out as below: “Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.47 – Execution of decree – Objections to – Limitation period for filing – Held, High Court's view is correct that there is no limitation prescribed for filing of objections under S.47 and hence rejection of objections to execution by Revisional Court on that ground was not legally correct.” 5. In the light of the above cited decision, it is seen that the application preferred by the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should not have been dismissed by the Court below on the point of limitation and on the other hand, the Court below should have endeavoured to go into the merits of the application and dispose of the same one way or the other, after taking the same on file and inviting the objection from the respondent. 6. As above pointed out, The Court below has not gone into the merits of the application preferred by the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, it has purely rejected the application on the point of limitation. Despite the above position, the argument has been put forth by the respondent's counsel that the application preferred by the petitioner, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not legally sustainable, as no case is made out by the petitioner for maintaining the said application, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this connection, placed reliance upon the decisions referred to in the written arguments. 7. However, the above said contention put forth by the respondent's counsel, as such, cannot be accepted readily, when it is noted that the Court below had not gone into the merits of the case, either by holding that the application levied by the petitioner is not legally sustainable or otherwise and on the other hand, had chosen to reject the application only on the point of limitation. When, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court, the petitioner's application is not hit by limitation, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the authorities projected by the respondent's counsel could not be taken into consideration at this stage of the matter for deciding the merits of the application preferred by the petitioner and the same should be gone into by the Court below, after inviting the objection from the respondent and thereby dispose of the same one way or the other as per law. 8. 8. For the reasons afore stated, the impugned order, dated 14.02.2007, passed in unnumbered E.A. of 2007 in E.P.No.655 of 1998 in O.S.No.1540 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, is set aside and the Court below is directed to take the application preferred by the petitioner on file and dispose of the same on merits, after inviting the objection from the respondent as per law. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.