G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is presented by the judgment-debtor aggrieved by the order dated 30-5-1994 passed in Execution Case No. 4207 of 1994 by the Court of the Small causes at Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: The judgment-debtor is the father-in-law of the decree-holder who is the respondent in this petition. The decree-holder had instituted a money suit in the Court of the Small Causes, bangalore. The said suit was decreed on 31-3-1994 after contest in terms of which the judgment-debtor had to pay Rs. 6,662. 50 to the decree-holder. It appears against the judgment and decree, the judgment-debtor has preferred CRP No. 1619 of 1994 and the same is pending before this Court.

( 3 ) MEANWHILE, the decree-holder took out execution of the decree. The execution petition was filed on 3-5-1994 (during summer vacation) by the decree-holder for recovery of a sum of rs. 7,725/- inclusive of costs and current interest. The said execution petition was filed before the Vacation Court with an application under Section 21 (3) (b) of the Small Cause Courts act, 1964 seeking permission of the Court to present the execution petition during the vacation on the ground that the matter was urgent. It appears another application was also filed simultaneously under Rule 224 of Karnataka Civil Rules of practice seeking deputation of a Special Bailiff to execute the warrant of attachment of the moveables for the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the application.

( 4 ) THE Executing Court on the application seeking leave of the Court to present the execution petition during vacation permitted filing of the execution petition before the Vacation court.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the affidavit of the decree-holder and the submission of the learned counsel that no stay of the judgment and decree under execution had been granted by this Court, and in view of Order 21, Rule 22 of the C. P. C. , that if the decree is not more than two years old it was not mandatory to issue cause notice to the judgment-debtor before proceeding to consider the relief sought for by the decree-holder, the court ordered issue of warrant of attachment of movables of the judgment-debtor shown in the list of movables upto the extent of the claim amount of Rs. 7,725/ -.

( 6 ) OH the application I. A. 2 for deputation of a Special Bailiff to execute the warrant of attachment of the movables, the Court ordered deputation of a Special Bailiff to execute the warrant of attachment of movables. The case was adjourned to 27-6-1994. However, on 30-5-1994 an application I. A. 3 was filed on behalf of the decree-holder under Section 151, CPC praying for advancement of the case from 27-6-1994 to 30-5-1994. In the order sheet dated 30-5-1994 it is noted that "m/w returned unexecuted for want of police help".

( 7 ) IT seems the learned counsel for the decrees-holder filed amemo under the signature of the decree-holder stating that the judgment-debtor has not deposited the amount in the Court after filing of the execution petition; and on the application filed under Section 15. 1 for advancing the date of hearing, the Court has taken up the case on 30-5-1994 and on that day the decree-holder has filed another application under Section 151, c. P. C. , supported by an affidavit seeking police help and for breaking open the lock to get warrant of attachment of movables executed. One more application has been filed on the same day under Rule 224 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 seeking deputation of Special Bailiff to execute the warrant alleging that the warrant of attachment of movables previously issued had been returned unexecuted since the judgment-debtor obstructed due execution of the warrant by closing the doors and putting the lock on the premises and thus preventing the Bailiff from executing the warrant. It appears in the report submitted by the Bailiff while returning the warrant mention is also made that M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document