S. Jagadeesan, J. - (1.) As the matter arises under execution proceedings, both the counsel request that the civil revision petition itself can be disposed of. Hence by consent of both the counsel, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) The first respondent herein is the auction purchaser in the court auction sale. The second respondent is the decree -holder. The petitioners are the judgment -debtors. Pursuant to the decree in O.S. No. 24 of 1979 the properties of the judgment -debtors were brought to sale on 26.5.1985. The first respondent herein was the successful bidder in the court auction sale and the sale was confirmed in her favour on 12.10.1987. The first respondent filed application for delivery in E.A. No. 90 of 1988. That application was dismissed on 30.9.1992 since her counsel reported 'No instruction'. Thereafter the first respondent filed an application E.A. No. 314 of 1992 on 24.11.1992 for delivery of the property. The petitioners herein contested the application on the ground of limitation, contending that as per Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the application for delivery of the property ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the confirmation of the sale. As the application has been filed nearly after five years, the application is liable to be dismissed. The lower court allowed the application on the ground that for seeking delivery of the property only Article 136 of the Limitation Act will be applicable and not Article 134 of the Limitation Act and hence the application is within the time prescribed by the Statute. As against this order, the present revision has been filed.
(3.) Mr. M. Kandaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower court has misconstrued the judgment reported in N.S. Karuppanna Gounder v/s. Nagammal : (1996)IIMLJ470 . Only Article 134 of the Limitation Act is applicable for seeking delivery of the property. In accordance with this provision the application has to be filed within one year from the date of confirmation of the sale. Article 136 will be applicable only in case the executing court ordered delivery in an application filed within one year from the date of the confirmation of the sale and subsequently if any administrative order is to be passed. Hence, the lower court is not correct in allowing the application filed by the first respondent seeking the delivery of property.;