1. The auction purchaser is the revision petitioner herein. The property of the second respondent was brought to sale and the revision petitioner purchased the property in the auction, and certificate was also issued in his favour, under Rule 129 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Thereafter, the revision petitioner applied to the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for delivery of possession, by filing an Application, viz., E.A.No.61 of 2006, under Surcharge Order No.14 of 2004, and that Application was returned by the learned Principal District Judge, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of the property and the revision petitioner has to approach the Deputy Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society, for further action. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that, as per the provisions of Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, the auction purchaser can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for delivery of possession of the property and therefore, E.A.No.61 of 2006, was filed by the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner was admittedly, the successful auction purchaser, and a sale certificate was also issued in his favour. Therefore, the Court below has got jurisdiction to deliver possession of the property and the revision petitioner cannot be directed to approach the Deputy Registrar for such relief.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that, after the order was passed by the learned Principal District Judge, in E.A.No.61 of 2006, the revision petitioner approached the Deputy Registrar, for delivery of possession. The Deputy Registrar, by order, dated 24.09.2007, directed the revision petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, for delivery of possession. Challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, the revision petitioner filed Writ Petition No.35629 of 2007 and this Court, by order, dated 23.11.2007, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and directed the revision petitioner to work out his remedy in terms of Section 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, as amended by the Statute and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed, and hence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that the Court below may be directed to put the revision petitioner in possession of the property.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.S.Palaniswamy, the learned counsel for the first respondent-Society submitted that a reading of Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, makes it clear that only in a case, where the lawful purchaser is resisted and prevented by any person, other than a person, not being the judgment-debtor, the lawful purchaser can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, and, on such application being made, possession can be delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the purchaser, viz., the revision petitioner wants delivery of possession from the judgment-debtor/second respondent and therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, as per Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Hence, the order has been properly passed and it is for the revision petitioner to approach the Deputy Registrar for putting him in possession of the property.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent also endorsed the arguments of the first respondent and submitted that the execution application filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (1980) 1 MLJ 259 in [ Kasi Padayachi vs. Muthukumaraswami Naidu] in support of his contention that auction purchaser can approach the Civiil Court for delivery of possession.

7.