ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the auction purchaser in a Court sale whose application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC seeking delivery of possession of the property purchased in Court auction is rejected on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit, O.S. No. 123/1999 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madhugiri, against 6th respondent seeking a decree for maintenance and creation of charge in respect of two items of schedule properties. The said suit, after contest, came to be decreed on 06.11.2003 granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 300/- to each of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 6th respondent was also directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,254/- and charge was created on item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule properties. 6th respondent preferred R.A. No. 162/2003 challenging the said judgment and decree, but the judgment and decree of the trial Court was not stayed therein. Therefore respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed execution petition Ex. No. 39/2004 on 07.04.2004 for recovery of arrears of maintenance of Rs. 6,159/- and also sought for attachment and sale of properties on which the charge had been created. In the meanwhile appeal filed by 6th respondent came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court against which order 6th respondent preferred no appeal and therefore it attained finality. On the death of 6th respondent his legal heirs born through the first wife were brought on record, but they too did not satisfy the decree. Therefore suit item No. 1 was brought to sale after attaching the same in the execution proceedings. In the Court auction held on 16.01.2007, the petitioner herein was declared to be the highest bidder; he deposited the bid amount within the time stipulated and the sale in his favour was confirmed on 20.08.2008. The sale certificate came to be issued on 16.01.2009. 2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC on 09.09.2009 in Misc. Petition No. 7/2009 seeking delivery of possession of the property purchased by him in the Court auction. The sale certificate came to be issued on 16.01.2009. 2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC on 09.09.2009 in Misc. Petition No. 7/2009 seeking delivery of possession of the property purchased by him in the Court auction. The legal representatives of deceased 6th respondent filed their statement of objections contending that the application filed under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is to be dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The executing Court, after considering the rival contentions and after taking note of the decisions on which reliance was placed by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the limitation for filing an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC starts from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of issuance of sale certificate; the miscellaneous petition filed on 09.09.2009 is time barred and therefore dismissed the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order argued that, having regard to the language employed in Order 21 Rule 95 CPC an application by the auction purchaser seeking delivery of possession is to be filed only after sale certificate is issued and therefore it is the date of issue of sale certificate which is the starting point for filing the application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC; the trial Court committed a serious error in ignoring the said provision and computing the period of limitation from the date of confirmation of sale and therefore the impugned order should be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors/respondents herein argued that the title in the property which is the subject matter of the Court sale passed on the date of confirmation of sale; issuing sale certificate is not a proof of such sale. In view of the language employed in Article 134 of the Limitation Act, one year period prescribed thereunder has to be counted from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of issuance of sale certificate. 5. In view of the language employed in Article 134 of the Limitation Act, one year period prescribed thereunder has to be counted from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of issuance of sale certificate. 5. In the light of above, the point that arises for consideration in this case is: Whether the period of limitation for seeking delivery of possession by an auction purchaser of immovable property at a Court sale in execution of a decree begins from the date of confirmation of sale or from the date of issuance of sale certificate? 6. Before dwelling upon the point for consideration it is essential to understand the scheme provided for sale of an immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21 Rule 82 to Rule 96 deal with sale of immovable property by the Court. Once a property is offered for sale in auction conducted by the Court, the highest bidder in such public auction would be declared as 'purchaser' and he shall pay 25% of the purchase money immediately and the balance is payable in to the Court before the Court closes on the 15th day from the date of sale of property. After such sale, Rule 89 provides for an application for setting aside the sale on account of sale consideration being not deposited in the Court. Rule 90 provides for an application for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud. Where no application is made under Rule 89, 90 or 91 or where such application is made and disallowed under Rule 92, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and there upon the sale shall become absolute. Once an order is made confirming the sale, no suit to set aside an order confirming such sale shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. The remedy provided against an order confirming the sale is to prefer an appeal and separate suit is not maintainable. On the confirmation of sale the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the full details and description of the property sold; the name of the person who at the time of auction sale is declared as be the purchaser and the date on which the sale became absolute. The sale certificate is thus, only an evidence of such sale and not a document of title. The sale certificate is thus, only an evidence of such sale and not a document of title. The title in an immovable property sold in the Court sale passes to the auction purchaser, not under the certificate of sale but by an order of confirmation of sale. 7. The title of the court auction-purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 92. By virtue of Section 65 CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale. The certificate of sale, by itself do not create any title. It is merely evidence of title. The sale certificate is a formal acknowledgement of a fact already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the court is pristinely a ministerial one and not judicial. It is in the nature of a formalization of the obvious. The title to the property sold does not vest in the purchaser immediately on the sale thereof unlike in the case of a private sale. The court was required to make an order confirming the sale. It is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes, absolute in terms of Order 21 Rule 92. Such certificate bears the date as on which the sale became absolute. It is on the sale becoming absolute that the property sold vests in the purchaser. The vesting of the property is thus made to relate back to the date of sale as required under Section 65 CPC. 8. Therefore, once the sale is confirmed by an order of the Court, the auction purchaser would be entitled to possession of the property sold at the auction on an application being made by the purchaser under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC for an order delivering the property in his favour by putting him in possession of the same. 9. Article 134 of the Limitation Act prescribes the time limit within which an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is to be filed and it reads as under: Art. 134 For delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree One year When the sale becomes absolute 10. 9. Article 134 of the Limitation Act prescribes the time limit within which an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is to be filed and it reads as under: Art. 134 For delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree One year When the sale becomes absolute 10. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an application under Order 21 Rule 95 for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property on a sale in execution of a decree is to be filed within one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute. In other words, one year period starts running from the date when the Executing Court passes an order under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC confirming the sale. There is no time gap between an order confirming the sale and the same becoming absolute. Once an order is passed confirming the sale, the sale becomes absolute and within one year from that date, an application under Order 21 Rule 95 has to be filed. Issue of sale certificate under Rule 94 is of no consequence. The auction purchaser can seek delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC even without obtaining a certificate of sale. Even otherwise, when a sale certificate is issued on a subsequent date, it shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute. Therefore it is not the date of issue of sale certificate but the date on which the sale became absolute which is relevant for calculating the period of limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act in respect of an application under Order 21 Rule 95CPC. 11. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider Article 134 of Limitation Act in the case of Partta Khader Khan vs. Pattam Sardar Khan and Another, 1996 (5) SCC 48 and in the said decision it is held as under: 10. Now to the spirit of it. A court sale is a compulsory sale, conducted by or under orders of the court. The title to the property sold does not vest in the purchaser immediately on the sale thereof unlike in the case of a private sale. Now to the spirit of it. A court sale is a compulsory sale, conducted by or under orders of the court. The title to the property sold does not vest in the purchaser immediately on the sale thereof unlike in the case of a private sale. The law requires that it does not become absolute until sometime after the sale; a period of a least 30 days must expire from the date of sale before the sale can become absolute. In that while, the sale is susceptible of being set aside at the instance of the judgment-debtor on the ground of irregularity in publication or conduct of the sale or on defalcation as regard deposit of money etc., as envisaged in Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21. Where no such application is made, as is the case here, the court was required, as indeed it did, to make an order, confirming the sale and it is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes, and became, absolute in terms of Order 21 Rule 92. After the sale has become absolute, a certificate is required to be granted by the court to the purchaser, termed as "certificate of sale" in Order 21 Rule 94. Such certificate bears the date as on which the sale became absolute. It is on the sale becoming absolute that the property sold vests in the purchaser. The vesting of the property is thus made to relate back to the date of sale as required under Section 65 CPC. 11. Order 21 Rule 95 providing for the procedure for delivery of property in occupation of the judgment-debtor etc., requires an application being made by the purchaser for delivery of possession of property in respect of which a certificate has been granted under Rule 94 of Order 21. There is nothing in Rule 95 to make it incumbent for the purchaser to file the certificate along with the application. On the sale becoming absolute, it is obligatory on the court though, to issue the certificate. That may, for any reason, get delayed. Whether there be failure to issue the certificate or delay of action on behalf of the court or the inaction of the purchaser in completing the legal requirements and formalities, are factors which have no bearing on the limitation prescribed for the application under Article 134. That may, for any reason, get delayed. Whether there be failure to issue the certificate or delay of action on behalf of the court or the inaction of the purchaser in completing the legal requirements and formalities, are factors which have no bearing on the limitation prescribed for the application under Article 134. The purchaser cannot seek to extend the limitation on the ground that the certificate has not been issued. It is true though that order for delivery of possession cannot be passed unless sale certificate stands issued. It is manifest therefore that the issue of a sale certificate is not "sine qua non" of the application, since both these matters are with the same court. The starting point of limitation for the application being the date when the sale becomes absolute i.e. that date on which title passed, the evidence of title, in the for of sale certificate, due from the court, could always be supplied later to the court to satisfy the requirements of Order 2 Rule95. see in this regard Babulal Nathoolal V. Annapurnabai, which is a pointed. It therefore becomes clear that the title of the court auction-purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 92, and by virtue of the thrust of Section 65CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale; the certificate of sale, by itself, not creating any title but merely evidence thereof. The sale certificate rather is a formal acknowledgement of a fact already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the court is pristinely a ministerial one and not judicial. It is in the nature of a formalization of the obvious. 12. Following the ratio in the aforementioned decision, the Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan vs. Malajyandi Konart, AIR 2006 SC 1458 held as under: 14. The limitation for the purpose of Article 134 starts from, the date of confirmation of sale. (See Ganpat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. V. Kailash Shankar and Ors. 1987(3) SCC 146 ). In Pattam Khader Khan V. Pattern Sardar Khan and Anr. ( 1996 (5) SCC 48 ) this court held that it is not from the date when the sale certificate is issued that the limitation starts running. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. 1987(3) SCC 146 ). In Pattam Khader Khan V. Pattern Sardar Khan and Anr. ( 1996 (5) SCC 48 ) this court held that it is not from the date when the sale certificate is issued that the limitation starts running. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. It cannot be said to attain finality only when sale certificate is issued under Order XXI Rule 94. There can be variety of factors conceivable for which delay can be caused in issuing a sale certificate. The period of one year limitation now prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act in substitution of a three year period prescribed under Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is reflective of the legislative policy of finalizing proceedings in execution as quickly as possible by providing a quick forum to the auction-purchaser to ask for the delivery of possession of the property purchased within that period from the date of the sale becoming absolute rather than from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. On his failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation. 13. Therefore, the legal position is very clear. The limitation for the purpose of Article 134starts from the date of confirmation of sale. It is not from the date when the sale certificate is issued that the limitation starts running. The purchaser cannot seek to extend limitation on the ground that the certificate had not been issued. Issuance of sale certificate is not a sine qua non for filing an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. On the sale becoming absolute the property sold vests in the purchaser. Therefore the sale certificate is a formal acknowledgment of a fact already accomplished stating as to what was sold. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. On his failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation. Therefore the order of the Executing Court that an application filed under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is barred by time cannot be found fault with. 14. On his failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation. Therefore the order of the Executing Court that an application filed under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is barred by time cannot be found fault with. 14. The argument of the respondent is that, as the question of delivery of possession as adjudicated by the executing Court has attained finality, a separate suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable. He sought to support the said argument by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Harnandrai Badridas V. Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad and Others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2423 wherein it is held that, as a result of amendment to Section 47, the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, whether he is decree-holder or not is unquestionably a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47. Having regard to this, all questions arising between the auction-purchaser and the judgment-debtor must be determined by the executing Court and not by a separate suit. Therefore, it is contended that the auction purchaser, by virtue of the aforesaid provisions, becomes a party to the suit and his request for delivery of possession has been considered by the executing Court and once it is negatived, his right to possession for all time to come stood extinguished. Further reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in D. Rangappa Vs. G. Mudlappa and others, reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 4759 wherein relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Harnandrai Badridas case cited supra, this Court held that a suit for recovery of possession without filing an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC for possession by the auction purchaser as not maintainable. 15. Section 47 of the Code which deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree reads as under: 47. 15. Section 47 of the Code which deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree reads as under: 47. Questions to be determined by the court executing decree: (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court (2) [***] (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the court. Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II: (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section. An auction purchaser therefore, shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed and all questions relating to delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser shall be deemed to be the questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of the section and all such questions shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. All that it means is that the auction purchaser, after the sale is confirmed in his favour, is not expected to file a suit for possession. He will be treated as a party to the suit and can file an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC seeking recovery of possession. The right of an auction purchaser to recover possession being not in dispute there is nothing to be adjudicated in such proceedings. He will be treated as a party to the suit and can file an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC seeking recovery of possession. The right of an auction purchaser to recover possession being not in dispute there is nothing to be adjudicated in such proceedings. Once there is an order confirming the sale and an application under Order 21 Rule 95 being filed in the very same proceedings, the Court which confirmed the sale also has the power to deliver possession; only one condition to be satisfied is that such a request/application for delivery of possession shall be filed within one year from the date of confirmation of sale. The Legislature in order to avoid inconvenience and hardship to such auction purchasers has provided remedy by way of application under Order 21 Rule 95CPC so that the auction purchaser would get possession expeditiously in the very same execution proceedings. But by inadvertence or by mistake if he does not choose to file application within one year from the date of confirmation of sale, his right in the property does not get extinguished. If the application is not filed within one year, then the auction purchaser is not entitled to possession of the property in the said execution proceedings. But that can not take away his right to recover possession by filing a suit. The sale in his favour being made absolute, he would become the absolute owner of the property and shall have all the rights over such property under law including the right to recover possession. The only difference is, if such application is filed within one year he will get possession without paying any Court fee and without waiting for years. Once he loses that advantage given under law, then he has to file a suit for possession, pay requisite Court fee and such a suit is to be filed within 12 years from the date when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to his interest. In other words, on his failure to avail such a quick remedy, the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation. Such remedy is not barred under law. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER 1. Writ petition is dismissed. 2. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession independently.