UNITED FINANCE CORPORATION versus M.S.M. HANEEFA

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 11-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 1 S.C.R. 583 
UNITED FINANCE CORPORATION 
v. 
M.S.M. HANEEFA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4204 of2007) 
JANUARY 11, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Liinitation Act, 1963 - s. 134 - Suit decreed in favour of 
appellant (decree-holder) - In execution of decree, property of the 
respondent Oudgment debtor) sold in court auction - Purchased by 
judgment-debtor - Sale confirmed on 01.06.2002 - Applications 
by judgment-debtor seeking setting aside of auction sale and for 
appointment of Commissioner to value the property - Applications 
dismissed - Revision filed by judgment debtor, wherein High Court 
granted stay and the revision ultimately dismissed on 09. 07.2003 -
Thereafter application by decree holder/auction purchaser u/Or. 
XX! r. 95 CFC for delivery of possession of the property - Executing 
Court ordered delivery of possession - High Court dismissed the 
application as barred by limitation - On appeal, held: In view of s. 
134 of Limitation Act, an application for delivery of possession 
needs to be filed within a period of one year from the: 1:k11e i<'hen the 
sale becomes absolute -In the present case, until the n•1·i<io11 petition 
(which came to be dismissed on 09.07.2003) was dfaposed of, the 
sale was yet to become absolute -
Therefore, the application u!Or. 
XX! r. 95 CFC was well within limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 - Or. XX!r. 95 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In terms of Article 134 of the Limitation Act, an 
application for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable 
property at a sale in execution of a decree has to be filed within a 
period of one year from the dute when the sale becomes absolute. 
In the present case, the sal~ ~ould not have become absolute till 
the proceedings in the revision in C.R.P.No.2829/2002 ·was over 
and the revision was disposed of. The judgment-debtor, had filed 
two applications E.A.No.315/2001- (i) to set aside the sale alleging 
that the property was sold for a lower price as a result of which 
substantial injury was caused to him and (ii) another application 
583 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
584 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
in E.A. No. 77 /2002- an application for appointing Advocate-
Commissioner to assess the value of the property. As against 
the order dismissing E.A.No.77/2002, the judgment-debtor has 
filed the revision in C.R.P.No.2829/2002. So long as the said 
revision was pending, the court auction sale was yet to become 
absolute. Till the revision in.C.R..P. No. 2829 of2002 was disposed 
of in one way or the other, the sale was yet to become absolute. 
[Paras 16, 17) [590-H; 592-F-H] 
2. In Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the legislature has 
consciously adopted the expression "when the sale becomes 
absolute" and not when the sale was co11firmed. As against·the 
order dismissing E.A No. 77 /2002 since the ~evision was preferred 
by the judgment-debtor and the sanie came to be disposed of on 
9th July, 2003 the sale became absolute only on 9th July, 2003. 
The application filed under Order XXI Rule 95 C.P.C on 30th 
August, 2003 was well within the period of limitation. The High 
Court was not right in holding that the application under Order 
XXI Rule 95 C.P.C was barred by limitation and the impugned 
order cannot be sustained. [Para 17) [593-B-C] 
Chandra Mani Saha and Ors vs .. Anarjan Bibi and Ors. 
AIR 1934 PC 134; Sri Ranga Nilayan Rama Krishna 
Rao vs. Kandokori Chellayamma AIR 1953 SC 42S : 
19SO SCR 806 - relied on. 
Ganpat Singh (Dead) by LRs. vs. Kailash Shankar and 
Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 146 : 1987 (3) SCR 3SS; Pattam 
Khader Khan vs. Pattam Sardar Khan and Am: (1996) 
S SCC 48 : 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 320 - referred to. 
1987 (~) SCR 3SS 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 320 
G 
Affi 1934 PC 134 
referred .to 
relied on 
relied on 
Paras 
Paras 
Para 16 
Para 16 
19SO SCR 806 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4204 
of2007. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2006 of the High Court 
UNITED FINANCE CORPORATION v. M.S.M. HANEEFA 
585 
ofKerala·at Ernakulam in CRP No. 894 of2005. 
A 
Romy Chacko, Varun M., Subham Singh,Advs. for the Appellant. 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., M. Gireesh Kumar, Sriram P., 
Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of order passed 
by the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam allowing the revision in CRP 
No.894 of 20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.