ORDER :- This is a judgement-debtors application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Rampur allowing a Revision filed by the opposite party against an order passed by the learned Munsiff Rampur dismissing the application of the opposite party for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The relevant facts are these. In execution of a decree obtained against the judgement-debtor-applicant, certain properties belonging to the judgement debtor were auctioned on 14-11-73. The property was purchased by the opposite-party. A formal order confirming the sale was passed on 30-5-1974. The judgement-debtor-applicant filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 26-7-1974 questioning the liability of the properties in question to be sold and challenging the validity of the execution proceedings which had led to the sale of the properties in question. This objection was contested by the opposite-party and it was eventually dismissed on 7-2-76. On the termination of the proceedings commenced upon the objection of the judgement-debtor-applicant, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the opposite-party on 7-4-1976. On 12-4-1976, the applicant (opposite party) moved the application giving rise to this Revision for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P.C.

3. The judgement-debtor applicant contested the aforesaid application and raised a plea that the application was barred by limitation having

been filed more than one year after the determination of the sale. The objection was upheld by the trial court which dismissed the application of the auction purchaser opposite-party on the ground that it was barred by time.

4. Aggrieved, the auction-purchaser opposite-party filed a Revision before the learned District Judge, Rampur. The learned District Judge took the view that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation prescribed under Article 134 of the I Schedule of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for an application by auction-purchaser for delivery of possession would be one year from the date of the termination of the proceedings commenced upon the objection of the judgement-debtor-applicant under Section 47, Civil P.C. in which the validity of the sale had been directly called in question. The learned District Judge relied on a decision of the Assam High Court in Krishnadatta Bujarbarua v. Simdhuram Chaudhry reported in AIR 1950 Assam 89 which has placed reliance on a decision of the Privy Council in Chandra Mani Saha v. Anarjan Bibi reported in AIR 1934 PC 134. The learned District Judge held that the application of the auction-purchaser was, therefore, not barred by limitation. The revision of the auction-purchaser was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set aside. The trial court was directed to deliver possession of the property to the auction-purchaser.

5. Aggrieved, the judgement-debtor has filed the present revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the limitation for an application by an auction-purchaser has to be computed from the date of the confirmation of the sale in view of provision of O.21, R.92, C.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite-party on the other hand urged that the view taken by the Assam High Court in the aforesaid case is correct and sound and the order passed by the learned District Judge calls for no interference by this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the decision of the learned District Judge is perfectly correct, and that this revision has no force. The question which falls for determination is when does a sale become absolute within the meaning of Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The Privy Council in the above mentioned decision in the case of Chandra Mani Saha v. Anarjan Bibi (supra) has observed as follows :-

"Upon a consideration of the Sections and orders of the Code, their Lo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document