SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1094

ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Rathinambal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.03.2014 in E.A.No.4 of 2005 in E.P.No.33 of 1985 in O.S.No.30 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti.)

The only point for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the limitation period for filing an application seeking delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC by the auction purchaser starts from the date of confirmation of sale or from the date of issuance of the sale certificate.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision:

2. The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, allowing E.A.No.4 of 2005 in E.P.No.33 of 1995 in O.S.No.30 of 1983 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC seeking delivery of possession of the property which was purchased by the second respondent through Court auction. The case of the petitioner is that the property was sold by the executing court on 31.03.1986 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the second respondent/auction purchaser on 25.10.1989 and the































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top