RAMALINGAM Vs. RATHINAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the limitation period for filing an application seeking delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code by the auction purchaser starts from the date of confirmation of sale or from the date of issuance of the sale certificate.

(2.) The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, allowing E.A.No.4 of 2005 in E.P.No.33 of 1995 in O.S.No.30 of 1983 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Order XXI Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code seeking delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by the second respondent through Court auction. The case of the petitioner is that the property was sold by the executing court on 31.03.1986 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the second respondent/auction purchaser on 25.10.1989 and therefore, the application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code by the respondents 1 and 2 on 14.01.2005 in E.A.No.4 of 2005 for delivery of possession is barred by the law of limitation as it is hit by the provisions of Art. 134 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) As per Art. 134 of the Limitation Act, an application for delivery of possession by an auction purchaser will have to be filed within one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute. The contention of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor was rejected by the executing court viz., Sub Court, Panruti under the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 passed in E.A.No.4 of 2004 in E.P.No.33 of 1985 in O.S.No.30 of 1983. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 allowing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code by the second respondent/auction purchaser, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed.