JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.09.2019 passed in E.A.No.136 of 2018 in E.P.No.8 of 2013 in O.S.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.09.2019 passed in E.A.No.136 of 2018 in E.P.No.8 of 2013 in O.S.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The 1st respondent herein/Auction purchaser has filed a execution application in E.A.No.136 of 2018 in E.P.No.8 of 2013 in O.S. No.20 of 2011 under Order 21, Rule 35, 95, 96 to delivery the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, on 07.09.2019. Against the said order, dated 07.09.2019, the revision petitioner/Judgment debtor is before this Court.

3. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that the Court below ought to have rejected the execution application on the ground of limitation and E.A.No.136 of 2018 seeking for delivery was not filed within one year from the date of confirmation of sale. The suit schedule property is the only shelter for the petitioner and her family. The Court below erred in law in not adverting that the petitioner has expressed her willingness to settle the entire money due towards the decree passed in O.S.no.20 of 2011 as well as the other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the 1st respondent in purchasing the property.

4. Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Rajasekar, for Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the material documents available on record.

5. The revision petitioner has admitted that the 1st respondent/petitioner had purchased the property in Court auction sale. But, she contended that the petition in E.A.No.136 of 2018 was filed after two years from the date of sale confirmation.

6. The auction purchaser has purchased the property on 04.02.2016 and the sale was confirmed on 23.02.2016. The E.A., for delivery was filed on 07.06.2018, after the period of two years and three months.

7. The ingredients of Article 134 of Limitation Act is extracted hereunder:

When a sale can become absolute for invoking limitation under Article 134 of Limitation Act.

8. The ingredients of Order 21 Rue 92(1) of Civil Procedure code is extracted hereunder:

“Sale when shall become absolute or be set aside:-

(1) Where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute.”

9. In the case on hand the revision petitioner did not file any petition as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 92(1) of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the sale become absolute even before 07.06.2018. So, within a period of one year the auction purchaser should file execution application for delivery.

10. The question of limitation was not raised in the counter affidavit. But question of law can be raised at any time.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Renganathan Vs. Saravana Stores reported in 2018(4)CTC 419, is as follows:

.....

“13. In this case, the defendant has not taken a plea in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation. However, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/defendant, as per Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, a duty is cast upon the Cou