9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication was not accompanied by the certificate contemplated by Order 21, Rule 94, Code of Civil Procedure, and it appears that no such certificate had been obtained. On 8-4-1943, the Respondent applied for the certificate. That was more than three years after the sale became absolute. The contention of the judgment-debtors in this appeal is that the Respondent not being in possession of a certificate was incompetent to apply for possession regard being had, to the words of Order 21, Rules 94 and 95 and by the time she obtained the certificate the period of limitation had expired. They say that, the application ought, therefore, to have been dismissed. 2. Article 180, Limitation Act, by which this matter is governed provides as follows: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor on the ground of irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale, or on deposit by him in Court of the amount specified in the sale proclamation together with a percentage on the purchase money by way of compensation to the purchaser (Order 21, Rules 89-90). The application by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale in either of these two cases must be made within 30 days from the date of sale. Where no such application is made, the Court must make an order confirming the sale, 'and it is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes absolute' (Order 21, Rule 92). After the sale has become absolute, a certificate is granted by the Court to the purchaser which is called a certificate of sale (Order 21, Rule 94). Such certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date on which the sale became absolute. Such a certificate would entitle the Respondent to obtain possession under Rule 95 of Order 21. There is nothing in that rule to make it incumbent for the purchaser to file the certificate along with his application. On the confirmation of the sale it is compulsory to issue the certificate. The failure to issue the certificate - whether the delay arises due to the action of the Court or to the inaction of the purchaser - has no bearing on the limitation for the application under Article 180. The purchaser cannot seek to extend the limitation on the ground that the certificate has not been issued. It is patent, therefore, that the issue of a certificate is not the 'sine qua non' of the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
