Adherence to procedural norms in execution is crucial; parties must be given the opportunity to file objections as mandated under Order 21 Rule 34 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5024/2018 wherein the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not followed the procedure in dealing with the execution petition by answering Point No.1 as negative holding that no procedure is followed as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 34 both oral and documentary evidence placed on record CPC and answered point No.2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that order impugned requires interference. The First Appellate Court while passing such order, extracted the provision of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC and even discussed in paragraph 16 that when the JDr appears and filed an application for setting aside placing him as expart, the said order was set aside vide order dated 04.04.2018 and the further a prayer sought to grant time to file objection to the main petition was not considered and the Trial Court issued commissioner warrant on the very same day. In paragraph 17 discussed that there is a clear violation of provision of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC wherein the said provision mandates the Dhr to prepare a draft of the documents to be executed in his favour and deliver the same to the Court and the Court shall thereby cause the draft to be served to the JDr together with notice requiring his objections if any to be made. The First Appellate Court having considered the same, in paragraph 18, discussed the provision of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC and even discussed Section 47 of CPC and comes to the conclusion that the provision of Section 47 is general in nature and the provision of objecting the draft sale deed is particularly in the said provision itself. Therefore, when the JDr appears in the execution proceedings, he should be give an opportunity to file his objections not only to the draft sale deed but also to the main petition. In the present case, when the JDr appears and seeks time to file the statement of objections, no opportunity was given and also made an observation that the DHr has deposited the balance sale consideration in the year 1996 itself and RFA was disposed of in 2007 itself, why he kept quite till 2014 and also taken note of the fact that there is a delay in filing the execution petition. Having considered all these material on record, the First Appellate Court set aside the order of the Trial Court passed in Ex.P.No.13/2014 dated 05.04.2018 and matter was remitted back to the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal to give an opportunity to oppose the execution proceedings as well as draft sale deed to the appellant/JDr as required under Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC and directed the Trial Court to follow strictly the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC and the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 07.06.2019.

3. This order is challenged by the subsequent purchaser of the property which is the subject matter in the judgment and decree and in the execution Court proceedings and he being an objector, filed the application seeking leave of this Court to prosecute the appeal and this Court having considered the grounds urged in I.A.No.1/2025, permitted to file this appeal by separate order.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the very order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5024/2018 is erroneous. The counsel submits that when opportunity was given when he comes before the Court, he did not avail the opportunity to file the statement of objections. The counsel also woul