THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6301 of 2003 ORDER: 1. Challenging the docket order dated 29.8.2003 in E.A. No.302 of 2002 in E.P. No.96 of 1999 in O.S. No.111 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avinagadda, Krishna District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The respondent no.1, who is decree holder and auction purchaser, filed the Execution Application for delivery of schedule property. The impugned docket order reads thus: “Heard. Ordered to deliver the property the concerned party in the presence of elders on proper identification. Call on 1.9.2003.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the execution application is barred by limitation in view of Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that, as the said aspect of limitation was not raised before the court below, the matter may be remanded to the court below for proper adjudication. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the schedule property was sold in the execution proceedings on 06.11.2000. On that day, the first respondent herein, who is decree holder and who obtained permission to participate in the auction, became the highest bidder. The sale was confirmed in favour of the first respondent/D.Hr. on 06.02.2001. Before that, the judgment debtor filed Execution Application No.223 of 2002 to set aside the sale, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the judgment debtor filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. The appeal was also dismissed. Challenging the same, they preferred Civil Revision Petition No.4766 of 2004 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. 6. The present petition is filed by the respondent no.1/decree holder/auction purchaser to deliver the property in pursuance of the sale confirmation report on 21.10.2002, which was ordered by the court below. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the execution application are barred by limitation in view of Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because it is beyond one year, and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Pattam Khadar Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan & another[1], wherein it is held thus: (para 12). “Such being the state of law on the subject, we fail to see how the High court could have come to the conclusion that even though the sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order 21 Rule 92 Civil Procedure Code effectively passing title, the same can only be complete when evidenced by a sale certificate issued under Order 21 Rule 94, and that unless the sale certificate is issued, limitation cannot start for the purpose of an application under Order 21 Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code, vis-a-vis, Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High court, in our view erred in holding that it is only from the date when a sale certificate is issued, that the limitation starts running. Such view of the High court would not only cause violence to the clear provisions of Article 134 of the Limitation Act but have the effect of unsettling the law already settled.” From the above decision, it is clear that the impugned execution application has to be filed within one year from the date of confirmation of sale. But, in view of the fact that the question of law has been raised for the first time before this Court, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the court below so that the parties can let in evidence, if necessary to prove that aspect. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the court below for disposal of the execution application afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 29.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6301 of 2003 29.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6301 of 2003 29.3.2011 Between: Pushadapu Gurav & others …Petitioners And Batchu Rangaraju & another …Respondents [1] (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 48