Judgment 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an appellate order dated 17-9-1979. 2. This matter arises out of an execution proceeding. In the present case, the sale was held on 17-6-1968. It was confirmed on 6-12-1968. Sale certificate was prepared, notified, sealed and signed on 9-1-1969. On 12-2-1969, delivery of possession was given. In this circumstance I hold that the sale has become absolute and the execution proceeding terminated by an order dated 12-2-1969. 3. After the termination of the execution proceeding, no objection under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is maintainable. The petitioner filed an application under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code on 6-8-1973, when the sale had become absolute and the proceeding was terminated on 12-2-1969. The petitioner did not take any steps to file an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code when the sale had become absolute on 6-12-1968. An application under O.21, R.90 of the Code was filed by the petitioner on 6-8-1973. The trial Court was pleased not to allow the miscellaneous case and dismissed the petition on the ground that the transferee of the decree-holder was not made a party and the application under O.21, R.90 of the Code was filed after the sale was confirmed and became absolute. The proceeding in respect of sale comes to an end after the preparation of the sale certificate as well as after the delivery of possession. The sale certificate itself is a document of title. 4. In the present case, Art.134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , will apply. It provides that within one year the purchaser will apply for delivery of possession, when the sale becomes absolute. The sale becomes absolute after the sale is confirmed under O.21, R.90(1) of the Code. The sale shall not become absolute until and unless an appeal is pending against the order of confirmation of sale. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no appeal was filed against the order confirming the sale. Nor any application under O.21, R.90 of the Code was pending for disposal on the date of delivery of possession. The sale shall not become absolute until and unless an appeal is pending against the order of confirmation of sale. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no appeal was filed against the order confirming the sale. Nor any application under O.21, R.90 of the Code was pending for disposal on the date of delivery of possession. If any application under O.21, R.90 of the Code is pending for disposal on the date of delivery of possession, then the sale shall not become absolute until and unless the application under O.21, R.90 of the Code is disposed of. 5. So far as the present case is concerned, no application under O.21, R.90 of the Code was pending for disposal on the date of delivery of possession. As stated above, delivery of possession was given on 12-2-1969. The application under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code was filed on 6-8-1973. It is, therefore, clear that the sale had become absolute before filing the application under O.21, R.90 of the Code. If the sale had become absolute, then the application under O.21, R.90 of the Code is not maintainable. Hence the Courts below were justified in rejecting the application under O.21, R.90 of the Code filed by the petitioner on the grounds mentioned above. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, but without any costs.