1919 (10) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Article 180 of the Limitation Act.
2. Calculation of the limitation period for applying for delivery of possession after a court auction sale.
3. Effect of an application to set aside the sale on the finality of the sale confirmation.
4. Interpretation of Rule 92 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Applicability of Privy Council rulings on the computation of limitation periods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Article 180 of the Limitation Act:
The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 180 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for applying for delivery of possession of property sold in execution of a decree. The specific question is whether this period should be reckoned from the date of the initial confirmation of the sale or from the date when an application to set aside the sale is finally disposed of.

2. Calculation of the limitation period for applying for delivery of possession after a court auction sale:
The court auction sale occurred on March 25, 1913, and was confirmed on April 26, 1913. However, an application to set aside the sale was made on January 3, 1914, and was finally disposed of on June 25, 1915. The application for delivery of possession was made on February 19, 1917. If the limitation period is calculated from April 26, 1913, the application would be barred. However, if it is calculated from June 25, 1915, the application is within time.

3. Effect of an application to set aside the sale on the finality of the sale confirmation:
The judgment considers whether the sale becomes absolute within the meaning of Article 180 when the initial confirmation order is passed or when the application to set aside the sale is finally disallowed. The court concludes that the sale does not become absolute until the application to set it aside has been disallowed and the sale upheld. This interpretation ensures that the limitation period does not begin to run until the final determination of the sale's validity.

4. Interpretation of Rule 92 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code:
Rule 92 contemplates that an order confirming the sale should not be made until applications to set aside the sale under Rules 89, 90, or 91 have been disposed of. The court holds that if an application to set aside the sale is entertained after the initial confirmation, the order confirming the sale does not make the sale absolute until the application is finally disposed of. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to ensure that the sale's finality is determined only after all challenges to it have been resolved.

5. Applicability of Privy Council rulings on the computation of limitation periods:
The court references several Privy Council rulings to support its interpretation. In particular, the case of Baijnath Sahai v. Ranjut Singh is cited, where it was held that the confirmation of a sale dates from the final order resolving any challenges to the sale, not from the initial confirmation. The court emphasizes that the principle derived from these rulings is that the limitation period should be computed from the date when the sale becomes definitively confirmed, i.e., after all applications to set it aside have been resolved.

Conclusion:
The court concludes that the application for delivery of possession is not barred by limitation as the period should be computed from the date when the application to set aside the sale was finally disallowed (June 25, 1915), not from the initial confirmation date (April 26, 1913). This interpretation ensures that the purchaser's right to apply for possession is preserved until the sale's finality is conclusively determined.