K.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This revision application arises out of the following facts:
2. Radhey Shiam obtained a money decree against Pirthi Singh and Mangal Sen. The property was put to auction. It was purchased by Shekhar Chand on 15-11-1962 for Rs. 1250/-. The amount was less than the decretal amount due to him. The sale was confirmed on 18-10-1963. At the instance of Radhey Shiam the executing Court directed Shekhar Chand on 8-11-1963 to deposit Rs. 600/- being the rateable share of Radhey Shiam out of the execution money, by 14-11-1963. The order was not complied with by Shekhar Chand, who brought a suit No. 768 of 1964. The suit was contested. It was dismissed in default of Shekhar Chand. Radhey Shiam then filed a suit, giving rise to the present revision application, for the recovery of Rs. 600/- from Shekhar Chand. The suit was contested on various grounds and, inter alia, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.
3. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 600/- with costs against the defendant Shekhar Chand. It is against this judgment and decree that the present revision application has been filed in this Court.
4. The only point which was pressed in this case was that the suit was barredby limitation. There is no controversy that Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which corresponded to Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, applied to the facts of the present case. The limitation for such cases is three years from the date when the money is received.
5. The contention of the applicant was that the money was received on the date on which the auction took place and, therefore, from that date the suit for the recovery of the amount was beyond three years. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the time would run from the date the sale was confirmed because it was that date when the money received, and, therefore, the limitation would start running from that date. There is no dispute that if the period of limitation is computed from the date of the confirmation of sale, the suit would be within time.
6. There is no doubt that Shekhar Chand was entitled to a rateable distribution. It is also true that no rateable distribution was allowed to him, and, therefore, under Section 73(2), C.P.C. he was entitled to bring the suit. He will be entitled to a rateable distribution only when the decree-holder is entitled to the sale proceeds. The decree-holder would not be entitled to receive the sale proceeds unless the sale is confirmed. It is, therefore, on the date on which the sale is confirmed that one can say that the decree-holder is entitled to receive the amount. In my opinion, the suit for rateable distribution could be filed from the date of the confirmation of the sale and not from the date on which the sale actually took place. The view I have taken is supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in S. T. Pankajammal v. Sambandamurthi Mudaliar, AIR 1960 Mad 263. The suit was, therefore, well within limitation.
7. I have already observed earlier that there is no controversy whatsoever that to such a suit Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is equivalent to Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, applies.
8. In this view of the matter, the revision application has no force in it. It is hereby dismissed with costs.