Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under The appellant Corporation decree holder filed a suit for realisation of the suit claim and the said suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.2,72,100/ along with interest.
Sale certificate was issued to the appellant on 17th March, 2003.
The sale was made absolute on 1st June, 2002.
Being aggrieved by the order dismissing the Commissioners application A.No.77/2002 , the first respondent judgment debtor filed revision before the High Court in C.R.P.No.2829/2002 in which the High Court has granted stay of further proceedings in the execution petition.
It was companytended that in terms of Section 15 1 of the Limitation Act, the period of stay granted by the High Court between 17.09.2002 to 09.07.2003 should be excluded and the High Court erred in allowing the revision thereby dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 C.P.C. as barred by limitation.
By the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2006, the High Court allowed the revision and dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
Both the applications came to be dismissed by the executing companyrt.
Challenging the impugned order, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the companyrt auction sale does number become absolute on the passing of a mere order of companyfirmation of sale as enjoined by Order XXI Rule 92 1 C.P.C. but it becomes absolute only on the termination of proceedings initiated to set aside the order companyfirming the sale.
In the said application by order dated 12th August, 2005, the executing companyrt ordered delivery of possession which was challenged by the judgment debtor before the High Court in C.R.P.No.894/2005.
The appellant decree holder purchased schedule item No.2 property to an extent of 1 acre and 50 cents companyprised in Survey No.458/1 of Parassala Village along with the building situated therein.
In the meanwhile, the first respondent judgment debtor filed an application to set aside the auction sale Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. and also another application for appointment of the Commissioner to value the property.
In execution of the decree, the property of respondent judgment debtor was auctioned on 27th October, 2001 and the same was purchased by the appellant decree holder himself.
Thereafter, on 30th August, 2003, auction purchaser appellant filed an application under Order XXI Rule 95 C.P.C. for delivery of possession of the immovable property purchased in the companyrt auction sale.
It was further submitted that the steps taken by the judgment debtor to set aside the companyrt auction sale were pending companysideration before the High Court in R.P.No.2829/2002, which proceedings came to be terminated only on 9th July, 2003 and hence the application filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 C.P.C. on 30th August, 2003 was well within the period of limitation as stipulated under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allowing the revision in CRP No.894 of 2005 dated 2nd January, 2006 and thereby dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 C.P.C. on the ground that the application is barred by limitation and declining direction for delivery of possession of the immovable property purchased in the companyrt auction sale to the appellant.
The Civil Revision Petition came to be dismissed on 9th July, 2003.
