TARSEM LAL Vs. SURJIT KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the dismissal of the execution petition filed for delivery at the instance of a Court auction purchaser. The sale certificate was issued on 28.07.1992 after confirmation. An execution petition for delivery had been filed on 22.08.1992 and it appears that after a warrant of possession was issued which was not taken delivery but the petition was dismissed for default. The petitioner moved a petition for delivery again in the year 1997 and this was also dismissed for default and yet another application was filed on 16.07.1999. As it turns out that the petition for delivery for a Court auction sale that has taken place has been instituted only in the year 1999, there is no scope for extension of time for taking delivery through Court beyond a period of one year. If the petition had been filed within one year and it was not prosecuted successfully, it should have been restored to file in the manner known to law and the petitioner must have applied for further prosecution on the same. He cannot turn around after four years and file an application for making a contention that the first petition filed within time must enure to his benefit even for subsequent petitions. The petition is clearly barred by law and the order dismissing it was perfectly justified. I find no reason to interfere with the same. I make no observation about any other remedy which the petitioner may have for recovery of possession of property in accordance with law. The civil revision is dismissed.