THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 345 OF 2008 Date of Judgment: 28.9.2011 Between: Smt. Katta Satyanarayanamma …Petitioner and Sri Angara China Veerabhadrudu and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 345 OF 2008 ORDER: The judgment debtor is the petitioner in this revision petitioner. The facts disclosed that the suit filed by the second respondent/decree holder was decreed on 5.5.2000 for recovery of the decretal amount of about Rs.25,000/- and the property belonging to the petitioner/judgment debtor, admeasuring Ac.1-40 cents, was put to public auction on 21.8.2002. The auction purchaser/1st respondent herein was declared highest bidder and his bid was confirmed on 20.2.2004. It appears that there was an appeal vide AS No. 232 of 2004 pending before the District Court, West Godavari district against the decree and another revision vide CRP No. 1458 of 2004 also pending before this Court against the dismissal of application for condonation of delay filed by the judgment debtor. It appears that both the proceedings filed at the instance of the petitioner/judgment debtor were dismissed by the respective courts and thereafter the auction purchaser filed two applications i.e., EA No. 481 of 2007 for issuance of sale certificate and EA No. 540 of 2007 for delivery of possession. The sale certificate was issued on 12.11.2007 after the first appeal was dismissed on 21.2.2007. The date of dismissal of revision is, however, not available on record at present. The court below, therefore, ordered delivery of possession also by allowing EA No. 540 of 2007 moved by the auction purchaser. The said docket order is questioned in this revision primarily on the ground that the said order was passed without notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor and on the ground that delivery of possession is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act as the application for delivery was filed beyond one year after the date of confirmation. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondents were served, nobody appeared for them. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in GANPAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS Vs KAILASH SHANKAR [1] for the proposition that under Article 134 of the Limitation Act the auction purchaser is bound to ask delivery of possession within one year of the auction and on that ground he seeks to impeach the impugned proceedings directing delivery. The record also discloses that the delivery was already effected on 7.12.2007 in favour of the auction purchaser and it was recorded as such on 31.12.2007. However, the question as to whether the application for delivery has been moved in accordance with Article 134 of the Limitation Act has not been considered by the lower court evidently as it had not given any notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor while passing the impugned order. It is also not clear from the record as to whether there was any stay operating against further proceedings in execution either in AS No. 232 of 2004 or in CRP No. 1458 of 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also not able to confirm as to whether the stay was operating against execution during the pendency of the said appeal as well as the revision. Since delivery of auctioned property was already effected long back, without proposing to disturb the said delivery, this revision petition is disposed of by directing the executing court to restore EA No. 540 of 2007 in EP No. 138 of 2000 to its file, give notice to the petitioner as well as the auction purchaser and the decree holder and give opportunities to the parties to file their affidavits for and against the order of the delivery and decide EA No. 540 of 2007 in accordance with law, afresh. The order of delivery of possession already made and recorded as above shall abide by the result of the adjudication of the executing court as directed above. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 28.9.2011 KR [1] AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1443