JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a second appeal filed by the Judgment debtor's son against order dated August 16, 1978 August 24, 1978 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Faizabad Division Dismissing appeal No. 6/5 Gonda although modifying the order of the trial court. That appeal was filed against the order dated September 23, 1974 passed by the Additional S.D.O. Tahsil Utraula, District Gonda in a case under Section 45 of the U.P. E.E. Act. 2. The prolonged litigation between the parties need not be narrated. The point involved is very short. Smt. Bhagwati Devi was auction purchaser of the disputed house of present appellant's father Jagannath which was put to sale under the E.E. Act. It took place on January 18, 1943. All the required money was deposited and sale was confirmed on January 29, 1943. Smt. Bhagwati Devi died before 1949. After her death her husband Rama Nand had applied for issue of the sale certificate but later on he also died. Smt. Dharma Devi, Second wife and her sons applied for being impleaded as legal representatives and requested the sale certificate to be issued to them. 3. Gauri Shanker filed objection alleging that Dharma Devi or her sons by Rama Nand were not heirs of Bhagwati Devi. 4. On September 4, 1971 order was passed that sale certificate be prepared in the names of Ram Gopal and others sons of Rama Nand from his second wife. Gauri Shanker went in appeal and he case was remanded to the trial court for inquiry as to who were the heirs of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. 5. The mother of Gaurishanker had litigated upto the Hon'ble High Court and had lost. Gaurishanker had also applied for depositing sale amount and had requested for cancellation of the sale and had lost. 6. In compliance to the remand order, the learned Addl. S.D.O. passed order dated September 23, 1974 holding the three daughters of Bhagwati Devi to be her heirs. As mentioned above appeal against this order was dismissed and the learned Addl. Commissioner had directed to issue sale certificate in the name of three daughters of Bhagwati Devi and also to deliver possession to them. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. As mentioned above appeal against this order was dismissed and the learned Addl. Commissioner had directed to issue sale certificate in the name of three daughters of Bhagwati Devi and also to deliver possession to them. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. Preliminary objection was raised that no second appeal was provided and Section 46(2) of the U.P. E.E. Act was relied upon. It was requested that it be treated as a revision under Section 46(2) of that Act which was allowed. Therefore it shall be treated as a revision. 9. Another preliminary objection was raised that some parties have died and no substitution application was made. Therefore this appeal should be abated. The objection is not tenable as the matter is at the stage of execution and Rules 3, 4 and 8 are not applicable to such proceedings per Rule 12 of Order 22 of the C.P.C. 10. It was argued by the applicant counsel that sale certificate cannot be issued as no application was moved by the heirs within the prescribed limitation and similar other arguments were advanced. 11. In reply it was argued that according to Section 146, C.P.C. the heirs have applied and the proceedings can proceed and no limitation was involved as Rama Nand had applied within time. 12. In my considered opinion the learned counsel for the parties and both the courts below have not tried to understand the legal position regarding issuing of sale certificate. The provision for which is to be found in Rule 94 of Order 21 of the C.P.C. which runs as follows:- Order 21, Rule 94, C.P.C. Certificate to purchase:- "Where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. Such certificate shall bear the date, the day on which the sale become absolute." Rule 92(1) of Order 21 of the C.P.C. provides as follows:- "Where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute." 13. In this case after prolonged litigation the sale was confirmed on January 29, 1943 and it became absolute on that date according to order 21, Rule 92(1) of the C.P.C. and then Smt. Bhagwati Devi the auction purchaser was alive. Therefore no question of her inheritance was in question and according to Order 21, Rule 94 of the C.P.C. it was the duty of the trial court to issue the sale certificate in her name. Therefore the courts below acted beyond jurisdiction. The sale certificate shall be issued in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Devi in whose favour sale became absolute and she shall be declared to be the purchaser by issuing sale certificate and that such certificate shall bear the date, the day on which the sale became absolute i.e., January 29, 1943. Therefore this revision is liable to be allowed and the order of the first appellate court ordering issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the three daughters of Bhagwati Devi cannot be allowed to stand. 14. The present dispute is, therefore, infructuous. It shall be decided after issuing the sale certificate in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Devi and as to who will be entitled to take possession on the basis of that sale certificate shall decided after issuing of the sale certificate. 15. This revision is, therefore, allowed. The orders of the first appellate court in appeal is set aside and the trial court is directed to issue the sale certificate in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Devi wife of Rama Nand bearing the date the day on which the sale became absolute i.e., January 29, 1943. The parties shall bear their own costs.