Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Article 134 of Limitation Act, 1963 applicable “when sale becomes absolute” and not when sale was confirmed MANU/SC/0035/2017 - (11 Jan 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">United Finance Corporation v. M.S.M. Haneefa</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Instant appeal arises out of order passed by High Court of Kerala allowing revision and thereby dismissing application filed by Appellant under Order XXI Rule 95 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) on ground that, application is barred by limitation and declining direction for delivery of possession of immovable property purchased in Court auction sale to Appellant. Challenging impugned order, it was submitted that, Court auction sale does not become absolute on passing of a mere order of confirmation of sale as enjoined by Order XXI Rule 92(1) of C.P.C. but it becomes absolute only on termination of proceedings initiated to set aside the order confirming the sale.

Language of Order XXI Rule 95 of C.P.C is indicative that application for delivery of possession of property purchased in Court auction can be filed where “a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under Rule 94 of Order XXI of CPC. In terms of Article 134 of Limitation Act, 1963, an application for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree has to be filed within a period of one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute.

Sale could not have become absolute till proceedings in the revision in C.R.P.No.2829/2002 was over and revision was disposed of. Judgment-debtor, had filed two applications; to set aside sale alleging that, property was sold for a lower price as a result of which substantial injury was caused to him and another application for appointing Advocate-Commissioner to assess value of the property. As against order dismissing application, judgment-debtor has filed revision. So long as said revision was pending, Court auction sale was yet to become absolute. Till revision was disposed of in one way or the other, sale was yet to become absolute. In Article 134 of Limitation Act, legislature has consciously adopted expression “when sale becomes absolute” and not when sale was confirmed.

As against order dismissing revision since, revision was preferred by judgment-debtor and same came to be disposed of on 9th July, 2003, sale became absolute only on 9th July, 2003. Application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 of C.P.C on 30th August, 2003 was well within period of limitation. High Court was not right in holding that, application under Order XXI Rule 95 of C.P.C was barred by limitation and impugned order cannot be sustained. Supreme Court set aside impugned order and allowed the appeal.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Sri Ranga Nilayan Rama Krishna Rao vs. Kandokori Chellayamma AIR 1953 SC 425, Chandra Mani Saha and Ors vs. Anarjan Bibi and others AIR 1934 PC 134, Order XXI Rule 95 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Sale, Possession, Delivery, Limitation</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>