Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXI, rr. 92, 94, 95 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 134 – What is the starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Held: On a conjoint reading of sub-rule (1) of r. 92 and r. 94 of Order XXI of CPC, it is apparent that the order of confirmation of sale under sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of Order XXI culminates into a grant of a sale certificate under Rule 94 of Order XXI – The date of sale to be incorporated in the sale certificate is the date of passing of the order of sale confirmation – The very fact that Rule 94 of Order XXI incorporates a requirement of issuing a sale certificate shows that the Legislature was of the view that mere order of confirmation of auction may not be sufficient – The certificate is ultimately the evidence of the fact that the auction in favour of the person to whom a certificate is issued, has been confirmed by the Executing Court – Prima facie, the only way of avoiding inconsistency between Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC and Article 134 of the Limitation Act is to read into Article 134 that the starting point for making an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC is the date on which a certificate recording confirmation of auction sale is actually issued to the purchaser – The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pattam Khader Khan requires reconsideration by the larger Bench – In view of the Court, the larger Bench will have to decide the issue relating to the starting point of limitation for making an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC.
AFCONS Infrastructure Limited and Anr. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 24 : [2010] 8 SCR 1053; Inco Europe Limited and Ors. v. First Choice Distribution (A Firm) and Ors. (2000) 2 ALL ER 109; Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India and Anr. (1991) 2 SCC 87 : [1991] 1 SCR 364 – relied on.
United Finance Corporation v. M.S.M. Haneefa (dead) thr. LRs. (2017) 3 SCC 123 : [2017] 1 SCR 583 – referred to.
Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan & Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 48 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 320 – requires reconsideration.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.