KARNAIL SINGH Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karnail Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of village Pinjoli, Tehsil and District Rupnagar (auction purchaser) has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the order dated 15.9.1987 passed by the Court of Sr. Sub-Judge, Rupnagar, who dismissed the application of the petitioner Under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. for the delivery of the possession of the property which was purchased by him vide sale certificate dated 25.2.1984.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application Under Order 21, Rule 95, C.P.C. and wanted to take the actual physical possession of the property purchased by him. The property was sold in execution of the decree passed sometime in the year 1973 in a suit titled 'Midha Singh v. Hart Ram'. The property was purchased by the petitioner in public auction purchaser under the orders of the court on 21.8.1980. The sale was confirmed in his favour by the Sr. Sub-Judge, Rupnagar, on 25.10.1982 and, finally, the sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.2.1984. The application for taking the possession was moved on 28.10.1986. The petitioner states that his application dated 28.10.1986 is within limitation as Devki and Mohindro, daughters of Shero and sisters of Hari Ram, Judgment Debtor, filed a suit No. 33 of 4.3.1984 for injunction in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rupnagar in which ad interim injunction was granted to them on the same day against the petitioner. The suit was ultimately decreed in favour of Devki and Mohindro as a result of which the petitioner had to file an appeal. In the suit appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar (appellate Court) vacated the injunction on 24.10.1986 and allegedly directed the petitioner to proceed with the matter for getting the possession of the property purchased by him in the auction. In this view of the matter, the petitioner filed the application Under Order 21, Rule 95, C.P.C. on 28.10.1986 for the delivery of the possession.

(3.) The application was contested by Hari Ram, Judgment Debtor, on the ground that it is barred by limitation as it has not been filed within one year from the date of the confirmation of the sale. It was pleaded by Hari Ram that no injunction restraining the petitioner was issued vide which the petitioner was injuncted upon from taking the possession of the judgment debtor. The only injunction granted was with respect of the shares of Devki and Mohindro and not in respect of the entire property in question. Devki and Mohindro had only 2/5th share in the property. The auction purchaser did not take any proceedings for getting the possession within one year from the date of the confirmation of the sale. Thus, the present application Under Order 21, Rule 95, C.P.C. is barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, had ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,300/- before taking the possession of the share in the property of Devki and Mohindro. The auction purchaser had not deposited the amount of Rs. 1,300/- and for that reason also, the application for taking the possession is not legally maintainable.