Judgment :- A common question arises for consideration in all these revision petitions, namely what is the period of limitation, if any, for an applicant to get delivery of a property sold under an award passed and executed by a Cooperative Registrar. To appreciate the contention raised it will be useful to give in a tabular form the date of sale, the date of confirmation and the date of application for delivery moved by the respective auction purchasers. C.R.P. No. Date of sale Date of Confirmation Date of application for delivery. 1797 of 1979 26-6-1976 31-10.4977 31-10-1978 , 1940 of 1979 18-8-1976 31-10-1977 31-10-1978 2323 of 1979 6-7-1976 22-7-1977 13-11-1978 2618 of 1979 21-10-1976 30-11-1977 13-11-1978 2732 of 1979 15-1-1977 22-7-1977 8-11-1978 The contention that was raised against the applications for delivery was that the applications are barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act and the date of confirmation should be deemed as the date next after thirty days from the sale date as there was no application to set aside the sale. The lower court assumed that Article 134 Limitation Act will apply and consequently held that the application are within time in the first, second and fourth of the cases from the actual date of confirmation and in the other two barred by limitation. The judgment-debtors have filed revision petitions against the orders in the first, second and fourth of the cases and the auction- purchasers have come up in revision in the third and fifth cases. The question for consideration is as to what is the period of limitation, if any, for an application for delivery of property filed in a civil court by an auction-purchaser in a sale conducted by the Co-operative Registrar in execution of an award passed by him. 2. Under S.76 (c) of the Co-operative Societies Act the Registrar or any other person subordinate to him can execute the award by attachment and sale or sale without attachment of the property of the person or a surety against whom the award has been passed. It is admitted that in all these cases the sale was held by the Registrar in exercise of powers conferred under S.76(c). For attachment and sale to be conducted by a Registrar, Rules have been framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. We are concerned only with R.82 to R.83(5) of the said Rules. It is admitted that in all these cases the sale was held by the Registrar in exercise of powers conferred under S.76(c). For attachment and sale to be conducted by a Registrar, Rules have been framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. We are concerned only with R.82 to R.83(5) of the said Rules. R.82 corresponds to 0.21 R.89 CPC and Rule 83 corresponds to 0.21 R.90, R.92, R.93 and R.94 CPC: When the sale is confirmed, R.83(5) provides that the Registrar shall grant a certificate of sale to the purchaser and such certificate has to be registered under the Registration Act at the cost of the parties to whom they are issued. It is not necessary that a purchaser who gets title to the property in such sale should apply for delivery to get possession of the property. But if he is resisted or prevented from taking possession of the property, R.84 provides that he may move a court of competent jurisdiction on production of the certificate of sale refered to above, to cause proper process to be issued to put him in possession. The Rule further provides that the court of competent jurisdiction shall proceed in the manner it is allowed to proceed in a case of a decree for possession if given to the purchaser. This is the only Rule under which the auction-purchaser in a sale conducted by the Registrar can come to a; civil court for help to get possession of the property. It is this Rule that has been invoked by the auction-purchasers in all these cases, though in some they have not in so many words quoted the Rule under which they have moved the Civil Court. As the Rule provides that the auction-purchaser must be treated as a holder of a decree for possession, Article 134 of the Limitation Act has no application. That applies only to the auction-purchaser in a sale conducted by the civil court to apply for possession through a civil court and the starting point of limitation is one year from the date when the sale became absolute. That is not the case here. Hence Article 134 has no application. The Article that applies is only Article 136 of the Limitation Act and that prescribes a period of 12 years to execute a decree. 3. That is not the case here. Hence Article 134 has no application. The Article that applies is only Article 136 of the Limitation Act and that prescribes a period of 12 years to execute a decree. 3. Counsel for the judgment-debtors contend that in all these cases there was no application to set aside the sale and therefore the sale must be deemed to have been confirmed on the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale and some of these applications have been filed one year after the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale the applications were all barred under Article 134. An order of confirmation alone will make a sale absolute and if for any reason that order of confirmation is not passed, there is no provision by which an order of confirmation can be deemed to have been passed. Secondly, as I said earlier this is a case where Article 134 has no application and hence these applications are not barred as contended for by the counsel appearing for the judgment-debtors In the result I hold that the applications filed for delivery of possession in all these cases being within 12 years are within time and they are not as such barred as contended for by the judgment-debtors. Therefore the orders challenged in C. R. Ps. 1797,1940 and 2618 of 1979 are upheld, and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The orders challenged in CRP s.2323 and 2732 of 1979 are incorrect. They are set aside and it is declared that the applications filed in these cases are within time. These revision petitions are allowed. The lower court will dispose of the application for delivery in accordance with law. In the nature of these cases the parties shall bear their costs.