Limitation for application for delivery of possession of immovable property which is purchased in the course of execution of a decree is one year from confirmation of sale - second application for setting aside sale is barred by res Judicata.

GANPAT SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. V. KAILASH SHANKAR AND OTHERS, 

1987(3) SCC 146

AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT at pages 1443 and 1444, 

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"Art.134, Limitation Act, would be applicable to an application under O.21 R.95 by the auction-purchaser for delivery of possession of the property sold in execution of a decree. The periods of limitation prescribed by Arts. 136 and 134 are for two different purposes, the former being for the execution of a decree for possession in respect of which decree is passed and the latter for an application for delivery of possession of immovable property which is purchased in the course of execution of a decree. The two articles have nothing in common for their operation. The two articles are not in conflict with each other. An application for delivery of possession of immovable property purchased in execution cannot be construed as an application for execution of a decree for possession of property so as to invoke the provision of Art. 136, Limitation Act. Merely because the auction-purchaser would be deemed to be a party in the suit in which the decree has been passed, as provided in cl.(a) of Explanation II to S. 47 of the Code, and by virtue of cl.(b) of Explanation II all questions relating to delivery of possession of the property shall be deemed to be questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of S.47, an application for delivery of possession under O.21 R.95 cannot be equated with an application for the execution of a decree for possession so as to apply 12 years' period of limitation as prescribed by Art.136, Limitation Act. Civil Revn. No.11 of 1981, D/-9-4-1986 (Raj.) Reversed." (Paras 9,11)