IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 206 of 2009(D) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2008 IN EP 48/2005 IN OS.159/2003 OF SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPALATHA, W/O.THYAGARAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, LATHA NIVAS, KALARKODE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THYAGARAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, LATHA NIVAS, KALARKODE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN. RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDERS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA HOUSING FINANCE LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY IT DIRECTOR, G.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDAN PILLAI, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, CHOORAKADU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. V.VASUDEVAN, MANAGER, KERALA HOUSING FINANCE LTD., ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P. NO. 206/2009-D: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 767/2009 IN C.R.P. NO. 206/2009-D DISMISSED 13/08/2009. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.206 OF 2009 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 18.12.2008 in E.P.No.48 of 2005 in O.S.No.159 of 2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Allappuzha. The above application was filed by the auction purchaser for the delivery of the property under Order XXI Rule 95 read with Section 151 of the of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Sub Judge allowed that application. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged by the judgment debtors raising a challenge that the application was moved beyond the prescribed period for seeking delivery. 2. Notice being given, the auction purchaser/2nd respondent has entered appearance. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the CRP.206/09 2 submissions made, it is seen that the sale of the property was conducted on 19.10.2006 and the sale was confirmed on 18.12.2006. Delivery of the property sold was applied for by the auction purchaser only on 10.10.2008. That application is clearly beyond the period of one year fixed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. Of course the auction purchaser has a right to sue for delivery of the property by filing a separate suit beyond that period, but, within the period prescribed by law. Reserving the right of the auction purchaser/2nd respondent to obtain the delivery of the property by instituting a suit for that purpose, the order impugned is set aside, allowing the revisin. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp