Separate suit to enforce delivery of possession would, therefore, be not maintainable

 K. R. Lakshminarayana Rao Vs. New Premier Chemical Industries, 

(2005)9 S.C.C. 354, 

the plaintiff/decree holder himself purchased the property in the year 1972. Auction sale was confirmed in the year 1973. Sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff/respondent on 28.11.1980. The respondent did not however take any step to obtain delivery of possession of the said property within a period of one year in terms of Order 21, Rule 95 of the C.P.C.. In the year 1998, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit praying for declaration of title and possession of the suit property, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. It is observed in para 8 that a bare perusal of provisions of Order 21, Rule 95 of C.P.C. would leave no manner of doubt and in particular having regard to the amendments carried in C.P.C. by reason of the C.P.C. Amendment Act, 1976 that the steps for obtaining delivery of property in occupancy of the judgment-debtor is required to be taken by the auction-purchaser in terms of Order 21, Rule 95, C.P.C. and, thus a separate suit to enforce such a right would, therefore, be not maintainable