1. The Court auction purchaser is the revision petitioner herein.

2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

O.S.No.7 of 1973 was filed for partition on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. A preliminary decree was passed on 19/11/1974. An appeal against the same in A.S.No.14 of 1977 was filed on the file of the District Court, Thanjavur. On 24/2/1977, the appeal was dismissed. As the property was not capable of being divided, it was decided to sell the property in Court auction. Accordingly, on 25/1/1978, the Court auction was held. On 20/1/1979, the sale was confirmed by virtue of an order passed in I.A.No.451 of 1977. On the same day, i.e., on 20/1/1974, a final decree was passed. There was also an appeal against the final decree in A.S.No.146 of 1977. On 28/2/1980, the said appeal was dismissed. While so, the parties preferred another suit for the same relief of partition in O.S.No.78 of 1984. The said suit was dismissed on 12/2/1986 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed.

3. Pending appeal, C.M.P.No.8652 of 2000 was filed by the auction purchaser for amendment and correction of the description of the property. It was dismissed on 20/7/2000. Not satisfied, the auction purchaser had filed C.M.P.Nos.1534 and 1535 of 2001 again for correcting the description of the suit property in the order passed on 20/7/2000. The said C.M.Ps came to be dismissed on 5/3/2001 as not maintainable. In the said order, it was observed that the Court auction purchaser would be eligible for sale certificate only in execution of the decree in which the property concerned has been sold. Thereafter, on 1/11/2001, I.A.No.248 of 2002 was filed by the Court auction purchaser for issuance of sale certificate. The said I.A was dismissed on 30/7/2003 by the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The revision petitioner, who is the auction purchaser contended that the interest of the Court auction purchaser has to be protected by the Court. It was further contended that there were four stages for a Court auction purchaser before taking delivery of the property, viz.,

(i). passing of the final decree;

(ii). Making the sale absolute;

(iii). Issuance of sale certificate and

(iv). Delivery of possession.

6. The auction purchaser/revision petitioner contended that the sale does not become absolute by mere passing of an order of confirmation. The sale will attain finality only after the disposal of the appeal against the final decree. It was contended further by the learned counsel for the petitioner that A.S.No.146 of 1979 was pending before the District Court. Therefore, the sale could have been confirmed only after the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, Article 134 of the Limitation Act, though fixes the period as one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute under Rule 95 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the sale becomes absolute only after issuance of the sale certificate which is yet to be issued to the petitioner. As the sale certificate was not issued till then, the petitioner had approached the Court by filing I.A for issuance of the sale certificate. According to the petitioner, the auction sale does not become absolute merely on passing of an order, confirming the sale under Order 21 Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it would attain finality only on the disposal of the appeal. As the final decree was passed only on 20/1/1979 and the appeal was disposed of only on 28/2/1980, there was no confirmation. Therefore, prayed that the trial Court ought to have issued the sale certificate.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that when the sale was confirmed on 20/1/1979, the auction purchaser should have taken steps within a period of one