P KUPPAN Vs. JAYARAMA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur ordering for the delivery of the property to the Court auction-purchaser. The Court auction-purchaser, in pursuance of the sale certificate issued in his favour, filed application for delivery in H.A. No. 72 of 1993 and the judgment-debtor objected for delivery on the ground that he did not file application to take delivery of possession within one year from the date of confirming the sale as required under Article 134 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the delivery should not be effected. The learned Subordinate Judge, rejecting the contention of the judgment-debtor has ordered for delivery. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the execution Court had ordered for the issue of sale certificate even on 1-10-91 and therefore the starting point of the limitation is 1-10-91 for taking delivery, according to Article 134 of the Limitation Act but the Court auction purchaser filed the application for taking delivery only in 1993, which is barred by time and therefore, the lower Court ought not to have ordered for delivery of possession.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the sale certificate was issued only on 22-2-1993 and only after the issue of the sale certificate under Order 21, Rule 95 Code of Civil Procedure, the delivery can be sought for by the Court auction-purchaser and therefore the petition for delivery was filed within time.