AMAR KAUR Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P-13) whereby the execution application of the auction- purchaser (respondent No.1) has been restored, and the order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-15) whereby the objections of the petitioners have been dismissed and warrants of possession have been issued in favour of the respondent-auction purchaser.

(2.) Originally Hazara Singh, father of respondents No.1 to 8 filed a civil suit against Harnam Singh father of the petitioners for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.4.1975 in the respect of the land in dispute, and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.8,000/-. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 25.9.1981, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.8000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.1982. RSA No.786 of 1983 was admitted by this Court and recovery of interest stayed. Thereafter on 13.12.1983, in Execution Application No.4 for recovery of Rs.8000/-, Harnam Singh paid a sum of Rs.6000/- to Hazara Singh in Court. However, for the remaining recovery of Rs.2000/-, land measuring 16 kanals was put to auction which was purchased by respondent No.1 (son of Hazara Singh), for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. Harnam Singh filed objections wherein a settlement was arrived at to the effect that on payment of Rs.5,225/- by Harnam Singh, the said sale shall stand set aside but on his failure to do so, the objections shall stand dismissed. Since the said settlement could not be complied with, the executing Court confirmed the sale vide order dated 15.6.1984. Harnam Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 8.9.1986. CR No.3109 of 1986 was admitted by this Court and dis-possession of Harnam Singh stayed during the pendency of the said petition. However, the said revision petition was dismissed in default. Meanwhile, respondent No.1-auction purchaser on 13.6.1992 filed execution petition No.14/1992 for delivery of possession of auctioned property. The said petition was consigned to record, vide order dated 25.11.1992, as this Court had stayed dis-possession in CR No.3109 of 1986. On 16.7.2007, respondent No.1 filed another execution petition bearing No.18/2007 for delivery of possession stating that the said revision petition had been dismissed in default by this Court. Respondent No.1 filed yet another application for restoration of Execution Petition No.14 of 1992 which was earlier consigned to record. Vide the impugned order, the executing Court dismissed Execution Petition No.18 of 2007 as withdrawn and directed restoration of Execution Petition No.14 of 1992. The petitioners, who are the sons of Harnam Singh, filed objections which have been dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has urged that under Order 21 Rule 95 of the CPC, if sale is confirmed in favour of an auction purchaser, he can move an application for being put in possession and that limitation for such an application is one year as provided in Article 134 of the Limitation Act. Counsel for respondent No.1-auction purchaser has, however, argued that though the revision of the petitioners was dismissed in the year 2004, yet they filed two applications for restoration and the second one was dismissed only in the year 2008, and that thereafter they moved an application for revival of their execution which was pending and, thus, there is no question of invocation of Article 134 of the Limitation Act to the present case.