M V GOVINDAN Vs. VENKATARAMA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in R.E.A. No.23 of 1983 in R.E.P. No.268 of 1970 in O.S. No.594 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Dharmapuri.

(2.) FIRST respondent is the decree-holder and respondents 2 and 3 are the judgment-debtors. R.E.A. No.23 of 1983 was filed for delivery of the property, which the petitioner herein purchased in court auction held on 15.3.1971 for a sum of Rs.4,005. The sale was confirmed on 2.6.1971 and the sale certificate issued on 21.6.1971. R.E.A. No.458 of 1972 was filed for delivery of possession on 2.3.1972. On 8.3.1972 an order was passed to deliver by 11.4.1972. Since there was obstruction, steps were directed to be taken for removal of obstruction. Since steps were not taken, R.E.A. No.458 of 1972 was dismissed on 14.4.1972. R.E.A. No. 134 of 1973 was filed on 21.11.1972 and an order for directing delivery by 1.3.1973 after removing obstruction was passed, on 29.11.1973. On 7.3.1973 R.E.A. No.388 of 1973 was filed for removal of obstruction. On 22.12.1973 an order was passed directing delivery with police protection by 19.1.1974. O.S. No.411 of 1974 was filed on 7.11.1974 to set aside the order passed in the execution proceedings on 25.1.1974. Execution petition was closed because of the interim order passed in O.S. No.411 of 1974. On 31.12.1974, the said suit was dismissed. On 4.6.1979 R.E.A. No.23 of 1979 was filed. It was closed on 27.8.1986, since the sale certificate was not produced. The sale certificate could not be produced, since it was marked as document in O.S. No.41 of 1974. A request was made to call for the records, but that was not done. On 9.6.1981 R.E.A. No.23 of 1981 was filed, which was converted into R.E.A. No.23 of 1983 and the same was dismissed on 29.8.1986. It was against that order, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the present case, Art. 134 of the Limitation Act would govern and not Art. 136. Therefore, the execution petition has to be filed within one year from the date of confirmation of sale. In the present case, execution petition filed beyond one year is liable to be dismissed. In order to support this contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions in Ganpat Singh v. Kailash Shankar, A.l.R. 1987 S.C. 1443 and Govindrao Bopanrao Kadan v. Gopinath, A.I.R. 1994 Bom. 183. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the execution court was correct in dismissing R.E.A. No.23 of 1983.