Judgement ORDER :- This order will dispose of the above noted objection petition preferred by Lekh Raj son of Babu Ram Sharma, hereinafter referred to as the objector, under Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case giving rise to the present objection petition, may be thus stated. In Civil Suit No. 75 of 1979 (Indian Bank v. Bhagwan Dass Verma) a decree for a sum of Rs. 80,773.72 paise with cost was passed on 9-1-1981 in favour of against the plaintiff Bank and against the two defendants, namely, Bhagwan Dass Verma and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi, being the principal debtor and guarantor respectively. Since the two judgment debtors failed to pay the decretal amount. The decree-holder Bank took out execution petition No. 10 of 1982. In such proceedings, the immovable property of the judgment debtors located in Lakkar Bazar, Shimla was attached and sold by public auction 15-12-1983. It was purchased by S/Shri K.D. Sud and Karam Chand in equal share for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 18-5-1984 and the necessary sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 12-7-1984. 3. On 19-12-1991, the auction purchasers moved an application being O.M.P. No. 7 of 1992 for being delivered the possession of the property in question. 4. The objector on 27-8-1999 preferred the present objection petition initially under Section 47 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. However, vide order dated 8-3-2000 passed in O.M.P. No. 419/1999, such objections were allowed and permitted to be treated as under Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101, Code of Civil Procedure. It was inter alia, averred by the objector that vide agreement dated 25-9-1997 entered into between him and auction purchaser Shri K.D. Sud, he was inducted as a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, one bath room and open verandah on the third storey and one room on the top floor of the building in question, bearing No. 12/13 Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/-. It was further averred that at the time of agreement a sum of Rs. 900/- as advance rent for three months was paid by the objector to the auction purchaser K.D. Sud, who is stated to have died on 3-2-1998. 5. 300/-. It was further averred that at the time of agreement a sum of Rs. 900/- as advance rent for three months was paid by the objector to the auction purchaser K.D. Sud, who is stated to have died on 3-2-1998. 5. The objection is being resisted by the other auction purchaser Karam Chand as well as the legal heirs of the auction purchaser K.D. Sud (hereinafter jointly referred as auction purchasers). It was pleaded that the objector was never inducted as a tenant by the deceased K.D. Sud. The agreement dated 25-9-1997 and receipt of advance rent of Rs. 900/- was specially denied. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27-9-2000:- 1. Whether a fresh tenancy has been created in favour of the objector by one of the auction purchasers on 25-9-1997, as alleged, if so, to what effect ? OPO 2. Relief. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under : Issue No. 1. 8. The case set up by the objector A is that vide agreement dated 25-9-1997, he was inducted as a tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, bath room and an open verandah on the third floor and one room on the top floor of the building in question by the deceased auction purchaser Shri K.D. Sud on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and that a sum of Rs. 900/- as advance rent for three months was paid to the said Shri K.D. Sud. 9. The original agreement has not been placed on record by the parties. According to the objector the original agreement was in possession of the said Shri K.D. Sud while the auction purchasers have denied the very execution and existence of the agreement. The objector was permitted to lead secondary evidence as to the alleged agreement dated 25-9-1997. 10. Mark A is the xerox copy of the said agreement dated 25-9-1997, S/Shri Sita Ram (OW 3) and G.S. Grover (OW 4) are alleged to be the two marginal witnesses thereof. 11. The objector while appearing as OW 1 deposed that the accommodation presently in his possession was earlier in possession of his brother Madan Lal as a tenant. He was living with his brother. 11. The objector while appearing as OW 1 deposed that the accommodation presently in his possession was earlier in possession of his brother Madan Lal as a tenant. He was living with his brother. After his brother shifted from such premises, he came into possession thereof and that he has been approaching the deceased Shri K.D. Sud for accepting him as a tenant on a higher rent of Rs. 300/- per month. He then goes on to state :- "Shri Kapil Dev accepted me as a tenant and the rent was increased from Rs. 150/- p.m. to Rs. 300/- per month in respect of the accommodation on the third floor and top floor. An agreement came to be executed on 25-9-1997 at the Dhaba known as Taj Dhaba of Shri Kapil Dev which is in Lakkar Bazar. S/Shri Sita Ram and G.S. Grover had signed the said agreement as attesting witnesses. The agreement was signed by me and Shri Kapil Dev as parties. The agreement was signed by Shri Kapil Dev in my presence. The original agreement was retained by Shri Kapil Dev and I was given a xerox copy thereof. Mark A is the xerox copy, which was given to me by Shri Kapil Dev. A sum of Rs. 900/- was paid by me to Shri Kapil Dev at the time of agreement. This payment is duly recorded in the agreement." 12. During the course of cross-examination, the objector has deposed :- "Karam Chand is having a shop in Lakkar Bazar. It is correct that he also resides in Lakkar Bazar. It is correct that five to seven shops fall in between Taj Dhaba and the shop of Karam Chand. I had approached Kapil Dev about ten-fifteen days before the execution of the agreement. No legal advise with regard to the agreement was obtained. I had no talk with Karam Chand about the tenancy. I had never tried to approach Karam Chand in this regard. I must have met Kapil Dev two three times before the agreement. Sita Ram and G.S. Grover were not accompanying me whenever I have meeting with Kapil Dev. They had per chance met me on the date of agreement. The negotiations were finalised on the date of agreement at about 7 pm. I do not remember who had purchased the non judicial papers for the agreement. Sita Ram and G.S. Grover were not accompanying me whenever I have meeting with Kapil Dev. They had per chance met me on the date of agreement. The negotiations were finalised on the date of agreement at about 7 pm. I do not remember who had purchased the non judicial papers for the agreement. I do not remember if I had gone to purchase the stamp papers. I do not remember who had indicated the value of the stamp papers. The agreement was scribed by Kapil Dev himself and he had told me that I should come to him again after 15-20 minutes. I had again gone to Sh. Kapil Dev after about 15 to 20 minutes. Sita Ram per chance came there since he was residing close by. Sita Ram was running a shop in the stalls of D.A.V. School, Lakkar Bazar. During those days Sita Ram used to close his shop between 6 to 8 pm. It is incorrect to suggest that he used to close his shop at 6 pm. Sh. G.S. Grover is a Sikh gentleman. It is correct that Sh. Grover has neither his shop nor his residence in Lakkar Bazar. Sh. Grover ordinarily remains in his typing shop till 8, 8.30 pm. Sometime he is in his shop till 10 pm. Sometimes he closes his shop at 5 pm. I do not not know of what value of the stamp paper was used in the agreement. The signatures encircled as at X of mark A are mine. One or two tables were occupied by the customers in the Dhaba of Kapil Dev at the time of the agreement, I do not know the tables in the Dhaba. I do not know from where the agreement was got typed. I do not know whether any carbon copy of the agreement was prepared." 13. OW 2 Madan Lal is the brother of the objector. In his cross examination as to the induction of the objector as a tenant by the deceased Shri K.D. Sud and the execution of the agreement, he has deposed :- "I was accompanied by my brother Lekh Raj, Sita Ram and Grover, a friend of my brother when I had gone to meet Shri Kapil Dev in Sept. 1997. It was the end of the month. I do not remember the date. The time was 6 or 7 pm. 1997. It was the end of the month. I do not remember the date. The time was 6 or 7 pm. I had gone to meet Shri Kapil Dev only once. The talk took place at the Dhaba of Kapil Dev. Besides, we four and Kapil Dev, two customers were in the Dhaba at that time. It took about I-1-1/2 hours to settle the matter. Shri Kapil Dev had agreed to take my brother as a tenant on the condition that the rent should be doubled........ After having a talk with Shri Kapil Dev, I had left and I do not know what happened between Kapil Dev and my brother. I was told about the agreement by my brother. I do not remember the date, month or year when I was told about the agreement. I had seen the agreement. It was on a plain paper." (Emphasis supplied) 14. A combined reading of the deposition made by OW 1 and OW 2 shows that they have contradicted each other on material facts, namely, the presence of OW 2 at the relevant time of negotiation. OW 1 has denied the presence of OW 2 at such time. Further as per OW 2, the two attesting witnesses Sita Ram and G. S. Grover had accompanied him and the objector for negotiations, however, OW 1 has gone to state that both these witnesses had per chance come to the Dhaba of Shri Kapil Dev at the time of execution of the agreement, xerox copy of which is Mark "A". According to OW 1, the objector, the agreement was executed on a stamped paper while OW 2 states that it was on a plain paper. 15. OW 3 Sita Ram, an alleged attesting witness of the agreement, in his examination-in-chief has deposed :- "About 4 years before, an agreement was entered into between Lekh Raj and late Kapil Dev at the shop of Kapil Dev in Lakkar Bazar, S/Shri Kapil Dev, Lek Raj and one Sardar were sitting at the shop. I was called by them. Shri Kapil Dev was having an agreement. According to which the house in question was given on rent to Lekh Raj. That agreement was signed by Shri Kapil Dev, Lekh Raj and Sardar who was sitting there. The agreement was written by Shri Kapil Dev and a copy of the agreement was given to Lekh Raj. Shri Kapil Dev was having an agreement. According to which the house in question was given on rent to Lekh Raj. That agreement was signed by Shri Kapil Dev, Lekh Raj and Sardar who was sitting there. The agreement was written by Shri Kapil Dev and a copy of the agreement was given to Lekh Raj. The xerox copy handed over to Lekh Raj was got prepared through the servant of Shri Kapil Dev. I have seen said xerox copy which is Mark "A" and was given to Shri Lekh Raj." (Emphasis supplied) 16. During the course of cross-examination, OW 3 Sita Ram has deposed :- (a) the agreement was written in the ninth month of the year 1997; (b) he does not exactly know the time, place and person about the agreement; (c) he does not know who had purchased the stamp paper for execution of the agreement ; (d) the agreement was not typed in his presence and when he reached the shop, the agreement had not been typed; (e) the servant of Kapil Dev had gone to get the agreement typed immediately after his reaching the shop; (f) the terms had orally been agreed upon and settled between the parties and no discussion or settlement of terms took place in his presence; (g) the signing of the agreement took about 10 to 15 minutes; (h) the servant who was sent to get a xerox copy of the agreement prepared, was sent before the signing of the agreement, and (i) the xerox copy was not signed by anyone in his presence. [Emphasis supplied] 17. OW 3, thus, also contradicts the objector on the point that he had reached the Dhaba of Kapil Dev at the time of execution of the agreement by chance. OW 3 has specifically deposed that he was called by the parties. 18. Secondly, if the xerox copy which was supplied to the objector, as per OW 3, was prepared before the signing of the agreement by the parties and the witnesses, it is not known how the xerox copy Mark "A" happen to contain the signatures of the parties and the witnesses. 19. OW 4, G.S. Grover, the second alleged attesting witness of the agreement, has a different story to tell. 19. OW 4, G.S. Grover, the second alleged attesting witness of the agreement, has a different story to tell. According to him when he had gone to inquire about the health of one Sardar Balwant Singh, whose Dabha is adjacent to that of Kapil Dev, he was asked by Kapil Dev, with whom he was not having any visiting terms to be a witness of the agreement. That Kapil Dev had sent his servant to his lawyer with a direction to get a rent deed scribed as per the discussion already held by Kapil Dev with his lawyer. The servant had brought the typed rent deed which was signed by the parties and the two witnesses. The original rent agreement was retained by Kapil Dev and a photo copy thereof which was brought by the servant of Kapil Dev was handed over to the objector Lekh Raj and that when such copy was handed over to Lekh Raj, he (Lekh Raj) had not asked for the signature of the parties and the witnesses on such copy. 20. According to OW 4 as well the xerox copy of the agreement was prepared before the original agreement was signed and none had signed the copy. However, copy mark "A", as stated above, bears the signatures of the parties and the witnesses. In fact, a perusal of mark "A" shows that the xerox copy was prepared after the parties and witnesses had appended their signatures to the document of which the same is a copy. 21. It is significant to note that though OW 1, the objector has deposed that he did not remember who had purchased the stamp paper for the agreement the endorsement on the back of mark "A" shows that the stamp papers were purchased by the objector himself. 22. The evidence led by the objector as to his induction as a tenant and execution of the agreement being self contradictory is not worthy of reliance and acceptance. 23. It is, therefore, held that the objector was not inducted as a tenant by the deceased Kapil Dev. The issue is decided against the objector. 24. An objection was raised by the objector to the effect that the auction purchasers were not entitled to possession as prayed for by them since the application made by them being OMP No. 7 of 1992 for possession on 19-12-1999 was barred by time. 25. The issue is decided against the objector. 24. An objection was raised by the objector to the effect that the auction purchasers were not entitled to possession as prayed for by them since the application made by them being OMP No. 7 of 1992 for possession on 19-12-1999 was barred by time. 25. Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963, provides for a period of limitation of one year from the date the sale becomes absolute for an application by the auction purchaser for delivery of possession of immovable property at a sale in execution proceedings. 26. The execution sale in the present case took place on 15-12-1983. Such sale was confirmed and made absolute on 18-5-1984. According to the learned counsel for objector the sale having become absolute on 18-5-1984, the requisite period of limitation of one year for making the application for delivery of possession by the auction purchasers stood expired on 17-5-1985. Therefore, the application made on 19-12-1991 was hopelessly barred by time. 27. The learned counsel for the auction purchaser, on the other hand, has contended that though order confirming the sale was made on 18-5-1984 the sale in the present case would not be deemed to have become absolute on that day since objections to the sale were pending on that date and that the sale would be deemed to have become absolute only on the date the objections assailing the auction sale were dismissed. Such objections were dismissed on 9-10-1991. The sale would be deemed to have become absolute only on 9-10-1991 and the application made for delivery of possession is within time. 28. Rule 92(1) of Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the question as to when the sale become absolute provides: "Where on 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. Provided that where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection ." 29. The proviso to Rule 92(1) quoted above, was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977. 30. The proviso to Rule 92(1) quoted above, was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977. 30. The Privy Council in Chandra Mani Saha v. Anarjan Bibi, AIR 1934 PC 134 while interpreting the words "when the sale becomes absolute" appearing in Art. 180, Limitation Act, 1908, (corresponding to Art. 134, Limitation Act, 1963), has observed :- "Upon consideration of the sections and orders of the Code, their Lordships are of opinion that in construing the meaning of the words when the sale becomes absolute, in Art. 180, Lim. Act, regard must be had not only to the provisions of O. 21, Rule 92(1) of the schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, but also to the other material sections and orders of the Code, including those which relate to appeals from orders made under O. 21, R. 92(1). The result is that where there is an appeal from an order of the subordinate Judge, disallowing the application to set aside the sale, the sale will not become absolute within the meaning of Art. 180. Lim. Act, until the disposal of the appeal, even though the subordinate Judge may have confirmed the sale, as he was bound to do, when he decided to disallow the above mentioned application." 31. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in M. Ramkrishna Bhatta v. B. Parameshwara Somayaji, AIR 1964 Mysore 59 has held that an order confirming the sale during the pendency of an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, is illegal and that an order under Order 21, Rule 92(1) Code of Civil Procedure, confirming the sale can be made only after the application made to set aside the sale is disallowed. 32. To the similar effect it has been held by a learned single Judge of Madras High Court in Ramkrishna Reddiar v. Pichammal, AIR 1981 Madras 53. 33. In Rama Krishna Rao v. Chellayamma, AIR 1953 SC 425 the executing Court after disallowing an application made under Order 21 rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale in execution had confirmed the sale under rule 92(1) of Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure. The objectors feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of their application made for setting aside the sale, preferred an appeal. The High Court had dismissed their appeal. The objectors feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of their application made for setting aside the sale, preferred an appeal. The High Court had dismissed their appeal. A question arose as to whether the period of limitation as provided under Article 180 Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding to Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963) for an application for delivery of possession by the auction purchaser would run from the date of the order of confirmation of sale by the executing Court or from the date of dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Objectors. It was held (At p. 428) :- "Where a Subordinate Judge has disallowed an application under O. 21, R. 90, to set aside a sale in execution, and has made an order under Rule 92(1) confirming the sale, and an appeal from disallowance has been dismissed by the High Court, the three years period provided by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Schedule I, Article 180, for an application under O. 21, R. 95, by the purchaser for delivery of possession runs from the date of the order on appeal, the High Court having under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the same powers as the Subordinate Judge, the time when the sale becomes absolute, for the purpose of Article 180 is when the High Court disposes of the appeal." 34. In Srungavarapu Venkateshwara Rao v. Kolla Ramaiah 1998 (2) Civil Court Cases 675 (A.P.), it has been held by a learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court that limitation of the one year prescribed under Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963, for an application by an auction purchaser for delivery of possession commences from the date when the highest Court passes an order on the application to set aside sale or when the matter is concluded finally, even though the executing Court had confirmed the sale earlier. 35. The Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, AIR 1991 SC 401 had considered the question as to when a sale becomes absolute and has held that the object of issuance of sale certificate is to avoid any controversy with respect to the identity of the property sold and of the purchaser thereof as also the date when the sale becomes absolute. Issuance of a sale certificate has nothing to do with "when the sale becomes absolute". Issuance of a sale certificate has nothing to do with "when the sale becomes absolute". The sale becomes absolute when the proceedings originated questioning the sale are terminated. 36. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, the auction sale had taken place on 15-12-1983. The record shows that on 14-12-1983 an application was made by S/ Shri Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma sons of the judgment debtor Bhagwan Dass, being OMP No. 460 of 1983, under Order 21 rules 58 and 90 read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, objecting to the proposed auction sale and for the stay of such sale, inter alia, on the grounds that they were the owners of the property proposed to be sold, having inherited the same under a will executed in their favour on 29-11-1957 by their grandfather Maghi Ram, that is, father of Bhagwan Dass judgment debtor and husband of Smt. Shanti Devi, judgment debtor. Since in the meanwhile the auction sale had taken place, the application being OMP No. 460 of 1983 was dismissed as withdrawn on 21-12-1983. The objectors/applicants S/Shri Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma were, however, given the liberty to file fresh application/objections as permissible under the law and that the dismissal of OMP No. 460 of 1983 would not, in any manner, affect their rights. 37. The abovesaid S/Shri Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma, thereafter on 30-12-1983 filed an objection petition being OMP No. 481 of 1983 under S. 47 read with order 21 Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the auction sale dated 15-12-1983 on the grounds that the property in question is owned by them under the will dated 29-11-1957 executed in their favour by their grandfather Maghi Ram and that the same did not belong to or own by the judgment debtor Bhagwan Dass and Smt. Shanti Devi. This objection petition was dismissed in default on 18-5-1984 and on the same day the auction sale in favour of the auction purchasers held on 15-12-1983 was confirmed by a learned single Judge of this court. 38. The objectors Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma on 16-6-1984 vide application, O. M. P. No. 227 of 1984 applied for recalling of the order dated 18-5-1984 passed in O. M. P. No. 481 of 1983 and for the restoration of the said objection petition to its original number. 38. The objectors Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma on 16-6-1984 vide application, O. M. P. No. 227 of 1984 applied for recalling of the order dated 18-5-1984 passed in O. M. P. No. 481 of 1983 and for the restoration of the said objection petition to its original number. Such application was allowed on 8-10-1984 and the objection petition, being O. M. P. No. 481 of 1983 was restored to its original number. The consequence of the restoration of the objection petition being that such objection petition would be deemed to have been pending on 18-5-1984, the date on which the auction sale was confirmed. In other words, the confirmation of auction sale was made during the pendency of the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. 39. The objection petition being OMP No. 481 of 1983 was ultimately dismissed on merits by a learned single Judge of this Court on 9-10-1991. This order was never assailed by the objectors S. Shri Hardyal Verma and Deepak Verma by way of an appeal and thus has become final. 40. Since the sale was confirmed in the present case on 19-5-1984 during the pendency of the objections under Order 21 rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, such confirmation, in view of the settled law as discussed above, is illegal having no effect on the rights of the auction purchaser. The sale in the present case would be deemed to have become absolute within the meaning of Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963 only on 9-10-1991 when the objections under Order 21 Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, were finally dismissed and the said order became final. The limitation of one year would start from 9-10-1991 and as such the application made by the auction purchasers on 19-12-1991 is within time. 41. Relief. As a result, there is no merit in the objection petition, being O. M. P. No. 397 of 1999 made by the objector Lekh Raj and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/-. Petition dismissed.