S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents at the time of arguments.
(2.) O.S. No. 434 of 1962 was instituted by Sharda Devi and Triloki Nath both minors through their guardian Bidha Ram against Karim Bux predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The suit was decreed on 27.1.1966 for recovery of Rs. 2,950. For execution of the said decree proceedings were initiated and house of Karim Bux was auctioned on 27.4.1967. According to the petitioners, auction purchaser in the said auction was Sharda Devi minor through her guardian Bidha Ram (by that time Triloki Nath had died). Thereafter Sharda Devi appears to have compromised the matter with the petitioners. Sale was confirmed on 12.12.1970. Application for possession was filed by Bidha Ram respondent No. 4 the auction purchaser on 10.11.1974. At that stage petitioners filed objections before the executing court. The matter was registered as Misc. Case No. 327 of 1973. Munsif Agra through order dated 24.4.1976 rejected the objections of the petitioners and directed that execution for delivery of possession be proceeded and through the same order compromise in between the petitioners and Sharda Devi was set aside. Against the said order, petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 134 of 1976. VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra, through judgment and order dated 9.3.1983, dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued following three points : 1. Bidha Ram was not the auction purchaser and property was purchased in auction by plaintiff Smt. Sharda Devi through her guardian Bidha Ram. 2. Application for possession was barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act which prescribes period of one year for such application from the date on which sale becomes absolute ; and 3.The decree was compromised in between petitioners and Sharda Devi plaintiff decree holder and the said compromise stating that decree had fully been satisfied was accepted by the trial court on 7.1.1976. In respect of first contention, no document pertaining to sale has been annexed alongwith writ petition. Only proclamation of sale has been annexed as Annexure-2. In the said proclamation only the name of plaintiff decree holder has been given. Sale takes place after proclamation of sale hence in the proclamation of sale there is no question of mentioning the name of auction purchaser. However alongwith counter-affidavit filed by Bidha Ram, copy of sale proceedings has been annexed. In the said proceedings the bid of several persons has been mentioned and bids of Bidha Ram have been mentioned at several places. Bidha Ram offered bid on his own behalf. There was no indication in the bid sheet that he offered bid as guardian of Smt. Sharda Devi. Both the courts below particularly revisional court after thorough examination of the entire material on record clearly held that Sri Bidha Ram was auction purchaser in his own right. Revisional court also perused the sale certificate in this regard. Copy of the sale certificate has not been filed alongwith writ petition. Its copy has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 12 to the counter-affidavit of Bidha Ram. The sale certificate is only and only in the name of Bidha Ram. It is dated 15.12.1972 (sale was held on 27.4.1967 and confirmed on 12.12.1970).
(3.) ACCORDINGLY there is no merit in the first point hence it is rejected. As far as the question of limitation (point No. 2) is concerned, revisional court has held that petitioners themselves obtained the stay order on 29.8.1973 for staying the execution proceedings. It may be mentioned that before filing the objections on which orders impugned in the instant writ petition were passed (Misc. Case No. 327/73) petitioners had earlier filed objections under Section 47, C.P.C. in which stay order was passed on 29.8.1973. After dismissal of the said objection under Section 47, C.P.C., auction purchaser filed application for possession and petitioners filed objections numbered as Misc. Case No. 327 of 1973. The revisional court held that limitation started from the date on which sale certificate was issued and after excluding the period of stay, application for possession was within time. In this regard revisional court placed reliance upon the authorities of C. M. Saba v. Anarjan Bibi, AIR 1934 PC 134 and Sukhlal v. Ghasi Ram, AIR 1979 All 411.;