Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) These two revisions being identical in nature involving similar issues of fact and law, are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) Execution Case Nos. 5/86 and 6/86 were dismissed for non-appearance on January 25, 1990. Applications for restoration under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code were filed on August 12, 1991 along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavits of Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Santa Devi. The Executing Court rejected the applications vide order dated May 25, 1996. Against the said orders present action for filing the revisions has been resorted to.
(3.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice before I deal with the pivotal questions whether the dismissal of execution application in default of appearance of the decree- holder can be treated under Order 21 Rule 105, so as to attract Rule 106, or would be under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code that the Executing Court may invoke for its restoration?;