ORDER : The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 579 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2011 passed in E.A.No.177 of 2010 in E.P.No.58 of 2010 in O.S.No.137 of 1979. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent instituted a Suit in O.S.No.137 of 1979 for recovery of possession mainly on the ground that the petitioner is the trespasser of the trust property. Suit was contested by the parties and judgment and decree in O.S.No.137 of 1979 was passed on 31.10.1984. The judgment and decree became final and the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.58 of 2010 on 05.08.2010. During the pendency of the execution proceedings the erstwhile Managing Trustee died and the incumbent Managing Trustee was substituted through E.A.No.177 of 2010 in E.P.No.58 of 2010. Impleadment of the incumbent Managing Trustee was challenged by the petitioner and the said petition was dismissed by the E.P. Court and against the said order the present civil revision petition has been filed with a delay of 579 days. 3. The order in E.A.No.177 of 2010 in E.P.No.58 of 2010 was passed on 23.06.2011. The said order passed by the Execution Court in the year 2011 is now under challenge before this Court after a lapse of about 5 years and the miscellaneous petition to condone the delay has now been listed before this Court after a lapse of about 11 years from the date of passing of the order in E.A.No.177 of 2010. 4. Perusal of the original certified copy of the order reveals that the petitioner filed the copy application on 04.07.2013 after a lapse of about 2 years from the date of passing of the order in E.A.No.177 of 2010. Curiously, the Sub Court, Chidambaram has not disposed of the copy application for about 3 years and the stamp was called for on 01.03.2016 after a lapse of about 3 years from the date of filing of the copy application, which is not only irregular and the Court concerned has to conduct an enquiry regarding the possibility of any malpractice, collusion or otherwise. The copy was made ready on 02.03.2016 and thereafter, the present civil revision petition was filed on 15.04.2016 and the said civil revision petition was not pursued and it is now listed after a lapse of about 6 years from the date of filing of the civil revision petition to condone the delay of 579 days in filing the civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that 3 separate other copy applications were filed by the petitioner in C.A.562 of 2013 on 05.03.2013 for a certified copy of the order dated 23.06.2011 and received the copies on 09.05.2013. Another copy application was filed on 27.02.2014 in C.A.No.391 of 2014 for the certified copy of the order in E.A.No.177 of 2010. Once again the petitioner filed fourth time a copy application in C.A.SR.No.26 of 2015 on 07.01.2015. The certified copies of the order dated 23.06.2011passed in E.A.No.177 of 2010 was made ready and received by the counsel for the petitioner on 19.10.2015. 6. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that the petitioner tried to restore the earlier C.A.No.1094 of 2013 and got the certified copy on 02.03.2016 purposely to drag on the proceedings for recovery of possession. 7. The Suit was instituted for recovery of possession in the year 1979 and the Suit was decreed on merits on 31.10.1984. The matter was taken by way of an Appeal Suit and thereafter Second Appeal. Both the Appeal Suit and the Second Appeal were dismissed by the First Appellate Court and High Court and thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.58 of 2010 on 05.08.2010. Even after the crystallisation of the rights of the parties during the year 2010, the decree holder is deprived of enjoying the fruits of the decree from the year 1984 and for the past about 38 years. It is an unfortunate situation, where, this Court can only record as a classic case of failure on the system of dealing with the Execution Petitions. It is an unfortunate situation, where, this Court can only record as a classic case of failure on the system of dealing with the Execution Petitions. If the decree of the year 1984 is unable to be executed even after a lapse of 38 years, more so, the said decree was confirmed in First Appeal and in the Second Appeal, this Court is afraid that the people will lose faith on the justice delivery system and thus, any leniency or further time would pave way for the judgment debtor to continue the illegality by keeping the possession of the Suit Schedule Property. 8. It is an unfortunate case, where the respondent/decree holder is struggling to enjoy the fruits of the decree for the past about 38 years. Therefore, there cannot be any lineancy in such matters, where the parties attempt to thwart the execution of the decree one way or other. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.6940 of 2016 stands dismissed and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.Sr.No.22180 of 2016 is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs. 10. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor is directed to hand over vacant possession of the Suit Scheduled Property to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.