JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned Executing Court") in Civil Case No.21/2014 whereby, while treating the application filed by the respondent No.1/decree holder (for brevity, "decree holder") under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC as an application under section 151 CPC, the order dated 17.01.2013 has been set aside and the execution petition is restored to its original number. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the execution petition filed by the decree holder for execution of the decree dated 24.07.2003, was dismissed in default by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 17.01.2013. An application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC for its restoration has been allowed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 treating the same to be under section 151 CPC. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners/judgement debtors (for brevity, "petitioners"), submitted that the learned Executing Court erred in restoring the execution petition to its original number inasmuch as the application under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC was filed beyond the period of 30 days. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 24.09.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the decree holder be dismissed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the decree holder submits that since the execution petition was not listed for hearing on 17.01.2013, its dismissal in default could not have been reckoned as under Order 21, Rule 105 CPC and therefore, the learned Executing Court did not err in restoring the same treating the application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC as under section 151 CPC which attracts no limitation. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgement of this Court in case of Lal Chand v. Bhagyawati, AIR 2018 Rajasthan 173. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Indisputably, the execution petition was not listed on 17.01.2013 for hearing; but, for report on the warrant issued to the petitioners. In view thereof, its dismissal in default could not have been under Order 21, Rule 105 CPC. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Indisputably, the execution petition was not listed on 17.01.2013 for hearing; but, for report on the warrant issued to the petitioners. In view thereof, its dismissal in default could not have been under Order 21, Rule 105 CPC. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Lal Chand(supra) involving identical controversy, held that the dismissal in default cannot be held under Order 21, Rule 105 CPC if the execution petition is not listing for hearing, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 106 CPC are not attracted and the restoration can be done invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 151 CPC. 7. In the present case also, the learned Executing Court has allowed the application filed by the decree holder treating it to be an application under section 151 CPC which did not attract the period of limitation as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 106 CPC. 8. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Executing Court in exercise of its judicious discretion. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.