This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor challenging the order dated 30.1.2009 passed in Misc.15/07 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Arasikere. The said order was made on the application filed under Order VII Order 11, Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, “the Code”) by the petitioner herein and the same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, this revision petition has been filed.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that O.S.No.439/77 was filed for recovery of a certain sum by the respondent against the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18.12.1980. Subsequently, Execution Petition No.238/81 was filed by the respondent for execution of the said decree. In the said proceeding, by order dated 24.10.1981, the suit schedule property was attached and on 23.9.1988 there was a public auction of the said property and by another order dated 31.8.1989, the sale was confirmed.

3. It would be of relevance to mention that the respondent herein who was decree holder purchased the property in the auction. Thereafter, M.A. 25/89 was filed by the petitioner challenging the confirmation of sale which was dismissed by order dated 11.4.1990.

4. Later, an application was filed under Order XXI Rule 96 of the Code by the respondent in Misc. 20/91 on 10.4.1991. On the said application, symbolical possession of the suit property which was purchased in the auction, was ordered on 2.6.2001 in favour of the respondent herein. The said order was challenged in M.A.16/01 which was dismissed on 13.4.2004. Thereafter, M.A.15/07 was filed by the respondent herein under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code seeking actual possession of the suit schedule property. The said application was filed on 13.12.2007 and by order dated 19.7.2008, there was an order for issuance of delivery warrant. Since the said order was an exparte order, at the instance of the petitioner herein, on 8.8.2008 it was recalled.

5. Subsequently, I.A. No. VII was filed by the petitioner herein in M.A.15/07 by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking dismissal of the proceedings on the ground that it was barred by limitation. After objections were filed and on hearing both sides, by order dated 30.1.2009, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code has been rejected. Consequently, the application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code (wrongly stated as Rule 96 in the judgment) has been allowed with a direction that delivery warrant is returnable by 2.3.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, the judgment debtor has preferred this revision petition.

6. At this stage, it would be of relevance to state that O.S.No.74/75 for declaration and partition was filed by one Shashikumar, son of the petitioner herein through his mother-Shivamma which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 31.7.1981 in which 1/6th share was allotted to said Shashikumar. Thereafter, R.A.15/87 was filed which was, however, dismissed on 31.1.1989. Subsequently, O.S.NO.161/91 was filed by the mother and sisters of the petitioner herein for partition and the said suit was decreed on 5.4.1994 against which R.A.13/94 was filed by the petitioner through his wife and son and the same came to be dismissed on 21.10.1995. In order to execute the said decree, E.P.No.103/02 was filed in which there has been allotment of shares made to the parties in the suit by virtue of mahazar drawn on 27.1.2003. Coincidentally, the suit property which was purchased by the respondent in the auction in E.P.No.238/81 out of which this revision arises, was the subject matter of O.S.No.161/91, and on 27.1.2003 in respect of Survey No.108/1, there has been allotment made granting 19 guntas to the petitioner’s mother, 19 guntas, 21 guntas and 22 guntas to the three sisters of the petitioner respectively and 1 gunta to the petitioner. The said property has been numbered as No.108/4.

7. When the matter stood thus, M.A.15/0