V.BALASUBRAHMANYAN
Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Ramachandra Padayachi – Respondent
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.
1. These two civil revision petitions although heard at an interval of a week or two in between are disposed of by this common judgment, considering that both of them raise an identical point of limitation. Eachisa case where the holder of a money decree purchases a judgment-debtor's property in execution sale. After confirmation of the sale in his favour the decree-holder-purchaser applies to the executing Court for delivery. The application is filed within a period of one year from the date when the sale is made absolute. This is the prescribed period for an application of this kind under Article 134 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. On this application by the decree-holder-purchaser, the Court orders delivery. But, for some reason or other, the purchaser does not succeed in obtaining actual delivery. The delivery warrant is returned unexecuted. In the one case, the judgment-debtor makes himself scarce, and the property is found under lock and key, and the purchaser does not move the Court for an order for breaking open the lock for gaining entry. In the other case an obstructer stands in the way of the delivery warrant being executed. Wh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.