Article 134 of the Limitation Act is impliedly repealed in view of the amendment to Section 47 of the CPC and Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, applications for delivery of possession of property purchased in a court auction are governed by Article 136, which provides a 12-year period for such applications.

1. - This revision petition under Section 115, Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1980, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 1 of 1980, by which an application for possession filed by the decree-holder purchaser was held to be maintainable by applying Article 136 of the Limitation Act, in preference to Article 134 of the Limitation.

2. The material facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated thus : Applicant Kailash Shankar is a decree-holder. Chouth Mai and Kailash Shankar plaintiffs who were father and sons obtained a preliminary decree in a suit for sale of mortgaged property situated in Chowkri Ghat Darwaza, Kothi, Mani Ramji, Jaipur City, against defendants Ganpat Singh, Bharat Singh, Smt. Prakash Kanwar and Smt. Damma Kanwar alias Sint. Abbey Kanwar--A preliminary decree was passed on 1st August, 1974 for a sum of Rs. 37,447.00 only. The decree-holder aplied for the sale of mortgaged property in execution case No. 34 of 1975. The property was to be auctioned on 14th July, 1978. Decree-holder Kailash Shankar himself purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 38,000/, in a court auction. The judgment-debtor filed objections against the same under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC, on various grounds of irregularities and illegality in publishing and conducting the sale. The objection petition was, however, dismissed on 2nd January, 1979 and consequently, the sale was confirmed by the Executing Court on 2nd January, 1979. Kailash Shankar decree-holder purchaser moved an application in the executing court for issuing a warrant for possession in his favour on 17th July, 1980. Ganpat Singh objector raised objections to the petition of the auction purchaser. It was contended by the objector petitioner that the application for possession is time barred. It was submitted that the application for possession was filed on 17th July, 1980 and the sale was confirmed on 2nd January, 1979. It was submitted by the petitioner that the application is governed by Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the period of limitation prescribed for such an application is one year and the time begins to run from the sale becomes absolute. The learned District Judge vide his order dated 12th December, 1980 over-ruled the objections dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioner and held that the application is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and, as such, it was within limitation, as the limitation prescribed under Article 136 is 12 years. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. The decree-holder purchaser has filed an application on 25th November, 1985 and submitted that after the sale was confirmed on 2nd January, 1979, Smt. Abhey Kanwar one of the judgment-debtor, filed an objection petition under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 72, CPC and the objections were held not maintainable, after confirmation of the sale. The learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder purchaser submitted that as the objections were dismissed on 21st July, 1979, therefore, this date should be taken to be a date when the sale became absolute. Shri V.K. Bandhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by applying Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. His further submission is that Section 47 CPC has nothing to do with the period of limitation as it only lays down, what questions are to be determined by the Court executing the decree. He further urged that even under the amended Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure , a person is required to apply for delivery of possession of the immovable property purchased in auction sale and such an application is to be moved within one year from the date when the sale is made absolute, and proper article applicable is Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 19