Full Judgment
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed underSection 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the orderdated 16.8.1996 made in an application filed in R.E.A.No.1023of 1993 under Order 21 Rule 95 and Section 151 of C.P.C fordelivery of possession of the immovable property as per thesale certificate issued by the Court.
2. The revision petitioner is a Court auctionpurchaser who purchased the property on 2.11.1983 in the courtauction for a sum of Rs.25,8 00/- and according to thepetitioner, 1/4th of the amount was paid on the very same dayand as per the sale notification, the balance amount was paidon 16.11.1983. The Judgment Debtor filed an application underSection 47 of C.P.C in R.E.A.No.867 of 1983 to set aside thesale, which application came to be allowed by the trial Courton 21.11.1984. The said Order was carried on in revision tothis Court by the decree holder in C.R.P.No.159 of 1995 andultimately this Court allowed the revision thereby set asidethe order dated 21.11.1984 made in R.E.A.No.867 of 1983 byorder dated 20.12.1989. In the light of the order passed on20.12.1989 in the revision in C.R.P.No.159 of 1985, theauction sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed on21.9.19 89. On 4.10.1989, the sale certificate was issued.It is pertinent to note here that on 2.7.1990, the judgmentdebtor died. The legal representatives of the judgment debtorfiled an application in R.E.A. No.175 of 1992 under Section47 of C.P.C to set aside the sale. The said application cameto be dismissed on 23.12.1992. The auction purchaser filed anapplication in R.E.A.No.1023 of 1993 on 17.12.1993 for delivery of possession. Among other grounds, the petition wasdefended by the respondents herein i.e., the legalrepresentatives of the judgment debtor that it is barred bylimitation and the executing Court by its order dated16.8.1996 in a laconic order dismissed the application as notmaintainable since it is filed one year after the saleconfirmation. The said order is now put in issue in thepresent revision petition.
3. I heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing on either side.
4. The precise question involved in this revision petition is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the sale has become absolute, whether the R.E.A.No.1023 of1993 filed on 17.12.1993 is barred by limitation.
5. As stated in the summation of facts, the ExecutingCourt dismissed the R.E.A.No.1023 of 1993 by a cryptic order,which is extracted below:
'This petition under Order 21 Rule 95 and Section 151of C.P.C to deliver possession of immovable property as persale certificate.
Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, since it isfiled one year after sale confirmation.'
6. In order to find out whether the application filedunder Order 21 Rule 95 by the petitioner is not maintainablesince it is filed after one year from the date of confirmationof sale, we will have to see the relevant provisions of theLimitation Act as well as the provisions under the CivilProcedure Code.
7. The relevant Article in respect of the presentcase is Article 1 34 of the Limitation Act, which reads asfollows:
134 For delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovableproperty at a sale in execution of a decree. One year When the sale becomes absolute.
From the above Article, it is clear that the courtauction purchaser shall file the application for delivery ofpossession within one year from the date on which the salebecomes absolute.
8. The relevant provision under the Civil ProcedureCode is Rule 92 Order 21, which envisages sale when to becomeabsolute or be set aside. The provision provides that 'Whereno application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91,which rules provide for filing of an application to set asidethe sale on deposit or on the ground of irregularity or fraudor on the ground of judgment debtor having no saleableinterest in the property sold or where no such application ismade or where such application is made and disallowed, theCourt shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereuponthe sale shall become absolute.
9. From the facts as stated above, it is clear thatthe auction took place on 2.11.1983 and the amount has beenpaid by the petitioner herein on 16.11.1983. Subsequently,the judgment debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in R.E.A.No.867 of 1983 to set asidethe sale, which application came to be allowed by the trialCourt on 21.11.1984. The said order was reversed in revisionby the High Court on 20.12.1989. Thereafter, the auction salein favour of the petitioner was confirmed on 21.9.1989. Thesale certificate was also issued on 4.10.1999. So, as per theprovisions, on the making of confirmation of sale on21.9.1989, the sale has become absolute and as per Article134, on the sale becoming absolute, the limitation for filingan application under Rule 95 of Order 21 starts running. Thesubsequent filing of another application by the legalrepresentatives of the judgment debtor in the year 1992 inR.E.A.No.175 of 1992 to set aside the sale would not extend tothe period of limitation, because as per the provision of Rule92 of Order 21, on the confirmation of sale by the Court, thesale becomes absolute and the limitation under Article 134starts running. If that be so, the period of limitationprovided for one year expires by 21.9.1990. The petitionerherein has not filed any application under Rule 95 of Order 21within that period and the application came to be filed onlyon 17.12 .1993. The filing of the application under Section47 of C.P.C in R. E.A.No.175 of 1992 by the legalrepresentatives of the Judgment debtor has been taken as ashield to stop the running of the limitation, which cannot besustained in my opinion. The court sale is a compulsory saleconducted pursuant to an order passed by the Court. The Orderis susceptible of being set aside on the ground of judgmentdebtor depositing the entire amount as stated under rule 89 to91 on the ground of irregularities in the publication orconduct or sale as envisaged under Rule 90 or on the groundthat the judgment debtors have no saleable interest under Rule91. That is why Rule 92 makes it clear that where such anapplication was made and disallowed, the court shall make anorder confirming the sale and thereupon the sale becomesabsolute. On the sale becoming absolute, the limitation underArticle 134 starts running and so far as the present case isconcerned, that period of limitation expires by 21.9.1990. Itis an admitted case that no application has been filed withinthat period.
10. The Supreme Court in PATTAM KHADER KHAN VS.PATTAM SARDAR KHAN reported in : (1996)5SCC48 has heldthus:
'On the sale becoming absolute, it is obligatory onthe part of the Court to issue certificate. That may, for anyreason, get delayed. Whether there be failure to issuecertificate or delay of action on behalf of the court or theinaction of the purchaser in completing the legal requirementsand formalities, are factors which have no bearing on thelimitation prescribed for the application under Article 134.The purchaser cannot seek to extend the limitation on theground that the certificate has not been issued.'
The Supreme Court further held thus:
'The period of one year limitation, now prescribedunder Article 13 4 of the Limitation Act, 1973, insubstitution of a three year period prescribed under Article180 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908, is reflective of thelegislative policy of finalising proceedings in execution asquickly as possible by providing a quick forum to beauction-purchaser to ask delivery of possession of theproperty purchased within that period from the date of thesale becoming absolute, rather than from the date of issuanceof the sale certificate. On his failure to avail of suchquick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a suit forpossession in a regular way.'
11. While that being so, on the facts, it is admittedthat from the date of confirmation of sale ie., on 21.9.1989,the application under Rule 95 of Order 21 C.P.C has to befiled within one year and that period expires by 21.9.1990.Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordancewith the provisions. The subsequent filing of an applicationin the year 1992 by the legal representatives of the judgmentdebtor would not give any legal right to the court auctionpurchaser to compute the period of limitation after thetermination of proceedings initiated by the legalrepresentatives. Hence, though the trial Court has not givenany detailed reason, the conclusion arrived at by the trialCourt is correct and as such I am not inclined to interferewith the order and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.