An auction purchaser is entitled to file multiple applications for delivery of property purchased in a court sale, even if previous applications were unsuccessful or dismissed due to obstruction, as long as the subsequent applications are filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :- The respondent in this civil miscellaneous second appeal was the second plaintiff in O.S. No.922 of 1118 M.E. on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Nagarcoil, who obtained a mortgage decree in his favour and who in due course of execution proceedings of that decree purchased the hypotheca. The Court sale was held on 30-1-1955 and the respondent-decree-holder and auction purchaser obtained a sale certificate dated 27-6-1955. In C.M.P. No.2856 of 1956, he applied for delivery of the properties comprised in the sale sanad and obtained a delivery order on 23-3-1956 in his favour. When the amin entrusted with the task of delivery attempted to execute the warrant of delivery he was met with obstruction from the two appellants in this appeal. The respondent therefore filed C.M.P. No.5456 of 1956 in the District Munsifs Court of Nagarcoil, on 14-6-1956 complaining of the obstruction of the appellants and seeking to remove the obstruction and to obtain delivery of the property purchased by him. The obstruction was on 27-3-1956 but the application for removal of obstruction filed by the respondent was presented in the executing Court only on 14-6-1956 long after the period of 30 days prescribed under the Limitation Act for preferring applications for removal of obstruction. On 5-12-1956, the executing Court passed the following order,

"Heard. This petition is filed after one month after the date of return of the warrant of delivery on account of obstruction. Hence this petition is barred by limitation. This petition is therefore rejected."

It seems that the respondent really withdrew this application for removal of obstruction finding that it was barred by limitation. The respondent next filed E.A. No.1659 of 1957 in the executing Court against the judgment-debtor and the obstructionists, the appellants, seeking relief by way of delivery of property comprised in the sale certificate. This application was resisted by the appellants on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the prior order of the executing Court in C.M.P. No.5456 of 1956 dated 5-12-1956 dismissing the respondents application for removal of obstruction. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application holding that the petition was not maintainable as in effect and in substance it was one for removal of obstruction caused by the appellants, long after the expiry of 30 days from the date of obstruction.

2. The respondent preferred an appeal, A.S. No.75 of 1958, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Nagarcoil, against the order dismissing his petition in E.A. No.1659 of 1957. It appears that an application was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge praying that E.A. No.1659 of 1957 may be treated and dealt with as one against the judgment-debtor alone, under Order XXI, Rule 95, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge acceded to this request, and struck out the names of the obstuctors, the appellants, from the record. In the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge, there was no bar on the part of the respondent to file a second application for delivery against the judgment-debtor; his application for delivery, E.A. No.1659 of 1957, was therefore remanded to the executing Court for fresh disposal.

3. This civil miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred by the two obstructionists who want the order of the executing Court to be restored.

4. The only question that arises for decision is whether the auction purchaser can file applications for delivery of the property purchased by him in Court sale repeatedly because of his failure to obtain delivery on each occasion he applies for delivery. Order XXI Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code governs the right of an auction purchaser to obtain delivery of the property purchased in court sale. That section provides that where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title crea