Judgment :- 1. The auction purchaser is the revision petitioner herein. The property of the second respondent was brought to sale and the revision petitioner purchased the property in the auction, and certificate was also issued in his favour, under Rule 129 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Thereafter, the revision petitioner applied to the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for delivery of possession, by filing an Application, viz., E.A.No.61 of 2006, under Surcharge Order No.14 of 2004, and that Application was returned by the learned Principal District Judge, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of the property and the revision petitioner has to approach the Deputy Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society, for further action. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that, as per the provisions of Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, the auction purchaser can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for delivery of possession of the property and therefore, E.A.No.61 of 2006, was filed by the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner was admittedly, the successful auction purchaser, and a sale certificate was also issued in his favour. Therefore, the Court below has got jurisdiction to deliver possession of the property and the revision petitioner cannot be directed to approach the Deputy Registrar for such relief. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that, after the order was passed by the learned Principal District Judge, in E.A.No.61 of 2006, the revision petitioner approached the Deputy Registrar, for delivery of possession. The Deputy Registrar, by order, dated 24.09.2007, directed the revision petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, for delivery of possession. Challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, the revision petitioner filed Writ Petition No.35629 of 2007 and this Court, by order, dated 23.11.2007, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and directed the revision petitioner to work out his remedy in terms of Section 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, as amended by the Statute and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed, and hence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that the Court below may be directed to put the revision petitioner in possession of the property. 4. On the other hand, Mr. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.S.Palaniswamy, the learned counsel for the first respondent-Society submitted that a reading of Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, makes it clear that only in a case, where the lawful purchaser is resisted and prevented by any person, other than a person, not being the judgment-debtor, the lawful purchaser can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, and, on such application being made, possession can be delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the purchaser, viz., the revision petitioner wants delivery of possession from the judgment-debtor/second respondent and therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, as per Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Hence, the order has been properly passed and it is for the revision petitioner to approach the Deputy Registrar for putting him in possession of the property. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent also endorsed the arguments of the first respondent and submitted that the execution application filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (1980) 1 MLJ 259 in [ Kasi Padayachi vs. Muthukumaraswami Naidu] in support of his contention that auction purchaser can approach the Civiil Court for delivery of possession. 7. The short question for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the auction purchaser, seeking delivery of possession of the property sold to him, pursuant to the power conferred under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 8. Chapter X1 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, deals with cause of action and as per Rule 116 of the said Rules, every decree holder, seeking recovery under Section 143 of any sum due under a decree, shall apply to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action arose in Form No.41, which shall be signed by the decree-holder. Rule 120 deals with the mode of proceedings against the properties of judgment-debtor, Rule 121 deals with Rules for seizure and sale of movable property, Rule 126 deals with procedure in the matter of attachment and sale of immovable property, Rule 127 deals with application to set aside the sale on deposit, Rule 128 deals with application to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud and Rule 129 deals with confirmation of sale and issue of sale certificate. As per the provisions of Rule 129 (iii), after the confirmation of any sale, the Registrar shall grant a certificate of sale to the purchaser and as per Rule iv), such certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser, and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all Courts and Tribunals, where it may be necessary to prove it. 9. In the case on hand, the sale was confirmed, as per the provisions of Rule 129 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, and the sale certificate was also issued to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the revision petitioner applied to the District Court, for delivery of possession, by invoking the provisions of Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, and that application was returned, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 10. No doubt, a reading of Rule 130 makes it appear that the provisions of Rule 130 can be resorted to only when the delivery of property is resisted by any person, other than a person, not being the judgment-debtor, claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account. If Rule 130 has to be given literal meaning, the order of the Court below appears to be correct. In that event, what is the remedy available to the purchaser, who purchased the property in auction. The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, has not provided any machinery for the auction purchaser to get possession of the property. It is not stated that whether the purchaser has to apply to the Registrar, after getting the confirmation of sale and sale certificate for delivery of possession or he has to approach the Court. The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, has not provided any machinery for the auction purchaser to get possession of the property. It is not stated that whether the purchaser has to apply to the Registrar, after getting the confirmation of sale and sale certificate for delivery of possession or he has to approach the Court. But, having regard to the power of the Registrar, as provided in Chapter XVI of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which deals with execution of decrees, judgment, awards and orders, it could be seen that the Registrar cannot be approached for getting possession of the property by the auction purchaser. 11. Section 143 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, deals with the power of the Registrar to recovery certain sums by attachment and sale of property. Section 146 of the Act, says that Registrar or a person, empowered by him in that behalf, shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, for the purposes of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, when exercising any power under this Act for recovery of any amount by attachment and sale, or by sale, without attachment of the property, or when passing any orders or on any application made to him for such recovery or to take some steps in aid of such recovery. Article 134 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, deals with delivery of possession by purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of the decree. Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, deals with execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court. 12. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 146 of the said Act, wherein, it is specifically stated that the Registrar shall be a Civil Court for the purposes of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and for the purpose of recovery of the amount, by attachment and sale or by sale, without attachment of any property, the Registrar shall be a Civil Court only for the purpose of execution of the decrees, judgments, awards and orders. The Act does not say that for delivery of possession by the purchaser of immovable property, at a sale, Registrar shall be a Civil Court for the purpose of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 13. The Act does not say that for delivery of possession by the purchaser of immovable property, at a sale, Registrar shall be a Civil Court for the purpose of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 13. Hence, when the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, specifically, confers power of a Civil Court to the Registrar for execution of the decree or order, it cannot be stated that the Registrar is also having the power to put the purchaser in possession of the property from the judgment debtor. Further, Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, were to be given interpretation, as stated by the respondents, viz., that Rule 130 can be invoked only when possession is resisted by the third party, other than the judgment debtor and it cannot be invoked for getting possession of the property from the judgment debtor by the auction purchaser, then, for getting possession from the judgment debtor, the auction purchaser has to approach the Registrar and for getting possession from the third party, the auction purchaser has to approach the Civil Court and the Act cannot provide for two forums for getting possession of the property by the purchaser from different persons. 14. Therefore, eventhough in Rule 130, it has been stated that the purchaser can approach any Court of competent jurisdiction, if possession is resisted or prevented by any person, other than the person not being the judgment debtor, the same Rule can be invoked by the purchaser for getting possession of the property from the judgment debtor/second respondent herein. 15. I am supported in this view by the judgment rendered in [ Kasi Padayachi vs. Muthukumaraswami Naidu] ( supra). In that case, Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, which is similar to Rule 130 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 came up for interpretation and the question involved in that judgment was the period of limitation for getting delivery of possession of the property by the auction purchaser and the learned Judge has held as follows:- "A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid statutory provision as well as the Rules framed thereunder, reveals that in the process of execution of the award for the realization of the amounts due thereunder and in the holding of the sale and other related proceedings, the Registrar is deemed to be a Civil Court. Though for the aforesaid purposes, the Registrar is deemed to be a Civil Court, yet, insofar as obtaining of delivery of possession of property purchased in a sale held by the Registrar or other authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act is concerned, Rule 70 treats the purchaser at such a sale as a Court-Auction purchaser. That this is the intention of the Rule is clear, though not very explicitly and happily expressed, and is evident from the use of the words "as if the immovable property, purchased had been decreed to the purchaser by a decision of the court". This would mean that the property should be treated as having been purchased or acquired pursuant to a decision of the court, viz. A decree. That would place a purchaser at a sale held by the Registrar under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, on par with a purchaser at a court sale in execution of a decree and therefore, the appropriate article that is applicable would be the one, which provides for delivery of possession of the properties purchased at a court sale." 16. Therefore, the learned Judge has held that insofar as the obtaining of delivery of possession of the property, purchased in a sale held by the Registrar, or other Authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act is concerned, Rule 70 (present Rule 130 of the Rules, 1988) treats the purchaser at such a sale as a Court-Auction purchaser. 17. Further, against the order passed by the first respondent-Society, in directing the revision petitioner to approach the Civil Court, for taking possession of the property, the revision petitioner filed W.P.No.35629 of 2007, and this Court, while dismissing the Petition, directed the revision petitioner to work out his remedy in terms of Section 130 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and that was passed, after hearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein and therefore, the respondents 1and 2 are also bound by the order passed in W.P.No.35629 of 2007. 18. 18. Thus, having regard to the provisions of Section 146 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the absence of any provisions for delivery of property from the judgment-debtor by the purchaser, and two modes of delivery before the two forums could not have been envisaged by the Act, for ordering delivery from the judgment debtor or for getting delivery from the third party, other than the judgment debtor, and considering the order passed in W.P.No.35629 of 2007, I am of the opinion that, the Execution Application filed by the revision petitioner before the competent Court is maintainable and the order of the Court below in returning the papers, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the revision petitioner has to approach the Deputy Registrar is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, is directed to number the application filed by the revision petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the parties. No costs.