The Article 134 applies for an application under Order XXI, Rules 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree for delivery of possession. The word “purchaser” in Art. 134 includes the decree-holder or his assignee. A purchaser who is not a decree-holder may also be a purchaser for the purpose of Article 134. The Article 134 applies to all applications for delivery of possession whether he happens to be a stranger or decree- holder. Order XXI, Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code shows that Court can order physical delivery of possession on being satisfied that (i) the property sold in Court auction is in possession of the judgment-debtor or some person on his behalf or on behalf of some person claiming under a title created by judgment-debtor subsequent to the attachment of property and (ii) a certificate in respect of the property has been granted under Rule 94 of Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code.
Order XXI, Rule 96 describes the mode of symbolical delivery of possession when the property sold is in occupancy of the tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same. When mortgagor leases out the property mortgaged after decree in auction sale of the mortgaged property at the instance of the purchaser, the purchaser is entitled only to symbolical possession and not actual delivery of possession. An application by auction-purchaser for being put into possession’ of the property he purchased is directly covered by the Article 134. The Article 134 applies to an application for delivery of possession of immovable property by a purchaser at a sale held by a Court of certificate issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The period of limitation under Art. 134 runs from the date when the sale becomes “absolute”. In considering the meaning of the words “when the sale becomes absolute” regard must be had not only to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 92( 1) of Civil Procedure Code, but also to other material sections and orders and rules of the Civil Procedure Code including those relate to appeals from the orders made under Rule 92(1).
In Ratan Âàðu Patil v. Dodhu, [2004 (4) CTC 148 (SC)], it has been held that the application for possession in respect of the property purchased by the auction-purchasers in auction sale has to be filed within one year as provided in Art. 134 of the Limitation Act and such limitation starts from the date of confirmation of sale.
In Radhakant Jha v. Maha Jha, (AIR 1964 Pat. 347), it has been held that the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available in respect of an application under the Art.
134 inasmuch as all applications under the provision of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code are expressly „ excluded from the purview of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.