ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) Heard Mr. Tangeda Dayananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - Judgment Debtor No.2 and Mrs. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Decree Holder. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 3, there is no representation on their behalf. 2. The petitioner herein filed the present revision challenging the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad (for short ‘Executing Court’) in E.A. No.44 of 2021 in E.P. No.14 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the trial Court condoned delay of 1374 days in filing an application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2017 and to restore the EP to its original number. 3. The petitioner herein is arrayed as judgment debtor No.2, while respondent Nos.2 and 3 are judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 and respondent No.1 is decree-holder in E.P. No.14 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in E.P. 4. Respondent No.1 - Decree Holder filed a suit vide O.S. No.123 of 2005 for recovery of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum thereon against the deceased judgment debtor towards hand loan provided by her to the deceased judgment debtor. i) During pendency of the said suit, to protect the suit amount, the decree holder also obtained order of attachment before judgment in respect of immovable property bearing H.No.4-3-39, situated at Jammikunta Town and Mandal. ii) Vide judgment and decree, dated 20.09.2013, the said suit was decreed. iii) As the deceased judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount, the decree-holder filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.14 of 2014 for realization of Rs.1,53,928/- against the deceased judgment debtor. iv) During pendency of the execution petition, the deceased judgment debtor died. v) While so, the aforesaid E.P. was closed on 17.04.2017. iii) As the deceased judgment debtor failed to pay the decretal amount, the decree-holder filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.14 of 2014 for realization of Rs.1,53,928/- against the deceased judgment debtor. iv) During pendency of the execution petition, the deceased judgment debtor died. v) While so, the aforesaid E.P. was closed on 17.04.2017. Therefore, the decree holder filed a petition vide E.A. No.44 of 2021 under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1374 days in filing an application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2017 and to restore the EP to its original stage, on the following grounds: a) Due to ill-health of her father; b) Her counsel also suffered from COVID-19, a pandemic; c) Therefore, she could not take steps for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor on record; d) Due to the said reasons, she could not enquire the stage of EP.; and e) Therefore, the aforesaid delay was caused. vi) The judgment debtors filed counter opposing the said application by contending as follows: a) The Limitation Act has no application to the execution proceedings; b) Cause title of the petition is improperly framed which is contrary to Rules - 9 and 29 of Civil Rules of Practice; c) The decree holder failed to show as to how she is dependant on her father and there is no specific ill-health said to have suffered by her father; d) The EP was dismissed much prior to COVID-19 pandamic and, therefore, the delay of 1374 days is wrong and in fact, the delay would have 1392 days; and e) The execution petition was closed on account of non-prosecution of case by the decree-holder in bringing the legal representatives of sole deceased judgment debtor. vii) Vide order dated 08.12.2023, the trial Court allowed E.A. No.44 of 2021 condoning the delay from 17.05.2017 to 08.03.2021 in filing the set aside petition observing thus: a) To give an opportunity for the decree-holder to recover the suit amount; b) In the absence of specific provision to condone the delay, it is settled law that the party can opt for filing petition under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay and, therefore, there is no bar in filing such petition; c) Mere wrong mention of delay period cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petition; d) If the petition is not allowed, serious prejudice would be caused to the decree-holder as it is a money decree; e) The contention of the judgment debtors that they are not numbered correctly cannot be considered for the reasons that the procedure is handmaiden of justice and of such technical grounds are to be considered, serious injustice would be caused to the decree-holder. 5. Challenging the said order, judgment debtor No.2 filed the present revision contending as follows: i) The trial Court erred in allowing the petition; ii) Despite not producing any documentary evidence to condone such inordinate delay, the trial Court erred in condoning the delay; and iii) The trial Court did not consider the computation of improper delay. 6. Whereas, Mrs. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - decree holder, would contend that learned Executing Court considered all the contentions raised by judgment debtor No.2 and allowed E.A. No.44 of 2021 condoning the delay of 1374 days in filing an application seeking restoration of E.P. No.14 of 2014 dismissed for default on 17.04.2017, vide order dated 08.12.2023. There is no error in it. 7. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the decree holder filed a suit in O.S. No.123 of 2005 against deceased judgment debtor for recovery of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest. The same was decreed on 20.09.2013. It is relevant to note that during pendency of the said suit, decree-holder had obtained order of attachment before judgment to secure the suit amount. The deceased judgment debtor did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in O.S. No.123 of 2005 and so also his legal heirs i.e., judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the said judgment and decree attained finality. 8. The deceased judgment debtor did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in O.S. No.123 of 2005 and so also his legal heirs i.e., judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the said judgment and decree attained finality. 8. The decree holder had filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.14 of 2014 against the deceased judgment debtor for realization of the decretal amount. The said EP was closed on 17.04.2017 by learned Executing Court on the ground that neither there was representation on behalf of decree holder, nor the decree holder took steps to bring the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor on record. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act, vide E.A. No.44 of 2021 to condone the delay of 1374 days in filing an application to set aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2017 and to restore the EP to its original stage. She has narrated the aforesaid reasons, more particularly the reason that her father fell ill and her counsel also suffered from COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, she could not take steps to bring the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor on record immediately. Thus, there was delay in filing the application to restore the execution petition to its original stage. 9. The said application was opposed by judgment debtors contending that the application under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the execution petition and the delay was not calculated and not explained properly. Cause title was improperly framed. The decree holder sought two reliefs in one application. 10. Vide impugned order dated 08.12.2023, learned Executing Court considered all the said aspects and condoned the delay of 1374 days in filing the application to restore the EP to its original stage. It is relevant to note that judgment debtor No.2 had filed an interlocutory application vide E.A. No.33 of 2024 in E.A. No.44 of 2021 in E.P. No.14 of 2014 on 18.04.2024, to condone the delay of 43 days in fling application to review the order dated 08.12.2023 of the Executing Court in E.A. No.44 of 2021. Vide order dated 19.11.2024, learned Executing Court dismissed the said E.A. No.33 of 2024. Judgment debtor No.2 did not challenge the said order dated 19.11.2024. Thus, it attained finality. 11. Vide order dated 19.11.2024, learned Executing Court dismissed the said E.A. No.33 of 2024. Judgment debtor No.2 did not challenge the said order dated 19.11.2024. Thus, it attained finality. 11. Vide order dated 04.04.2025, this Court called for original record in the said E.P. from the Executing Court and verified the same. It is apt to note that it appears that the decree holder did not file any application separately to bring the legal heirs of deceased judgment debtor on record. However, she filed an application under Order - XXI, Rule 106 of CPC vide E.A. No.180 of 2023 on 03.03.2021 to set aside ex parte order dated 17.04.2017 and to give an opportunity to her for recovery of decretal amount from the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor, and the same was returned on 31.03.2021 for not filing delay petition. Therefore, the decree holder filed application vide E.A. No.44 of 2021 under Section - 5 of the Limitation Act and the same was allowed vide order 08.12.2023. Challenging the same, judgment debtor No.2 filed the present revision. 12. As rightly held by learned Executing Court that the decree holder filed E.A. No.44 of 2021 to condone the delay in filing the application to restore the EP to its original position, there are no two prayers. The contention of learned counsel for judgment debtor No.2 that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the execution petitions is also untenable. A party cannot be remediless. Limitation Act is applicable even to execution petitions. The contention of judgment debtor No.2 that the decree holder did not compute the delay properly is also untenable. The office of learned Executing Court on satisfying with the delay shown by the decree holder, entertained the said application. Therefore, the judgment debtor No.2 cannot contend that the decree holder did not compute/calculate the delay properly. The learned Executing Court considered the said contention and gave a specific finding that the delay was properly calculated/computed. 13. The office of learned Executing Court on satisfying with the delay shown by the decree holder, entertained the said application. Therefore, the judgment debtor No.2 cannot contend that the decree holder did not compute/calculate the delay properly. The learned Executing Court considered the said contention and gave a specific finding that the delay was properly calculated/computed. 13. With regard to the contention of judgment debtor No.2 that the decree holder failed to explain the delay in filing the application to restore the EP is concerned, she has specifically stated the reasons i.e., illness of her father and her counsel also suffered from Covid-19 pandemic and, therefore, she could not take for filing the application to restore the E.P. in its original stage by bringing the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor on record immediately. 14. As discussed above, E.A. No.33 of 2024 filed by judgment debtor No.2 to condone the delay in filing the application to review the order dated 08.12.2023 passed in E.A. No.44 of 2021 was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2024. There is no challenge to the same. The judgment and decree obtained by the decree holder is a judgment and decree for recovery of money. She has also obtained protection order of attachment before judgment in the suit itself. There is no challenge to the same. Even there is no challenge to the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 in O.S. No.123 of 2005 either by the deceased judgment debtor or his legal heirs. It attained finality. Therefore, judgment debtor No.2 cannot oppose the application filed by the decree holder to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the EP to its original position on technicalities. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide order dated 08.12.2023, learned Executing Court condoned the delay of 1374 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2017 and to restore the EP to its original stage. It is a reasoned order and there is no jurisdictional error. The petitioner - judgment debtor No.2 failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, the present revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner - judgment debtor No.2 failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, the present revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.