M. THOONDIKARUPPASAMY Vs. MURUGESWARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed in the Execution Application No. 14 of 2014 in Execution Petition No. 24 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1 of 2017 dated 01.02.2016, on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the revision petitioner is the 2nd Respondent, in the Execution Application and defendant in the original suit. The said suit was filed for the recovery of the loan amount a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said suit was decreed on 01.08.2007 wherein, the defendant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- with interest for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from 02.01.2007. Subsequently, Execution Petition was filed in E.P. No. 24 of 2008 to bring the petition property for auction. Accordingly, the property was brought for auction and the Court action was conducted on 04.06.2010 and the 1st Respondent herein took the property on Court auction at a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 19.10.2012. Admittedly the possession of the property was not handed over and the sale certificate was issued in February, 2013. However, the Execution Application in E.A. No. 14 of 2014 was filed for recovery of possession of the property, but the case of the revision petitioner is that the said application was filed beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Article 134 of Limitation Act, 1963, so, the application filed under Order 21, Rule 95 is bad in law as the same is barred by limitation.

(3.) To support his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the Judgment in the case of Meenakshi Ammal v. Selvaraj and others, in CRP(NPD) No. 1958 of 2004 in para-13(x)(10) as follows: