IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 602 of 2008(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/02/2008 IN UNNUMBERED E.P. IN E.P.No.15/04 IN ARC.1519/2002-03 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- THE SECRETARY, PERINTALMANNA, TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. MR.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O RAVUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MELATTUR AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. SYAMALA,W/O RAVEENDRAN, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MELATUR AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY MR. G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R1 & R2. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.602 of 2008 - E --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The decree holder in E.P.No.15 of 2004 in A.R.C.No.1519 of 2002-03 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna, is the revision petitioner. Revision is directed against the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the execution court declining the request made by the decree holder for resale of the property. Admittedly, decree holder, pursuant to permission accorded, purchased the property of the judgment debtor in court auction and the sale was confirmed on 16.11.2004. However, stamp papers were not produced by the decree holder for issue of the sale certificate. Three years after the confirmation of the sale decree holder moved an application for setting aside the sale and for resale of the property for the reason of nonproduction of stamp paper for the issue of sale certificate. The execution court after hearing the counsel for the decree holder dismissed that application. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. C.R.P.No.602 of 2008 - E 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Order XXI Rule 84 of the CPC submitted that where there is default in deposit of the sale price after setting aside the sale property has to be resold. Provision under that rule is applicable even where there is failure of omission to produce the stamp paper after the confirmation of sale is the submission of the counsel. Reliance placed by the counsel under Rule 84 of Order XXI of the CPC to advance the case of the decree holder, a co-operative society to have resale of the property for nonproduction of the stamp paper for issue of sale certificate need be taken note of only for its rejection. The above rule envisages that on declaration of the successful bidder in the auction over the immovable property as the purchaser, he shall pay immediately without fail 25% of the purchase money. In default of such deposit, the property has to be resold. Sale becomes complete only when the bid has been accepted and deposit under the rule is paid. So much so, the C.R.P.No.602 of 2008 - E 3 rule apply to a case before completion of the sale and not in a post sale situation for default of the purchaser whether it be the decree holder or any other person in declining or failing to produce the stamp paper for issue of sale certificate after confirmation of the sale. The issue of sale certificate after confirmation of the sale is purely an administrative order of the court and not at all a judicial function. Where the decree holder has purchased the property in court sale towards satisfaction of the decree debt his remedy is to move an application seeking delivery of the property after obtaining a sale certificate. Such application can be moved for delivery within one year after the sale has become absolute as covered by Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is not the date of issue of sale certificate but the date of confirmation of sale that has to be reckoned for the period of one year to claim delivery under Order XXI Rule 95 of the CPC. In the present case sale became absolute, according to the decree holder, as on 16.11.2004 when it was confirmed by the execution court. After the right of the decree holder to get delivery of the property covered by the sale certificate has been C.R.P.No.602 of 2008 - E 4 lost by the bar of limitation the decree holder society has come forward with a case for setting aside the sale on the plea of nonproduction of the stamp paper for the issue of purchase certificate and non collecting of such certificate from the court. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-