The provisions of Order 21 Rule 34(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory and must be strictly complied with in order to ensure that the judgment debtor is given an opportunity to raise objections to the draft deed of conveyance.

( 1 ) SMT. Daisy Mantosh, the judgment debtor being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order No. 7 dated 4. 3. 1989 passed by Shri S. B. Muhuri, Assistant District Judge of the First Court at Alipore in Title Execution Case No. 8 of 1988 filed this appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the fact is that the plaintiff/decree-holder filed the execution case on 29. 7. 1988 praying for registration of a Deed of Conveyance through Court in her favour in respect of the suit property. On that date the execution case was registered and 31. 7. 1988 was fixed for verification. Since the decree-holder did not take any steps on 31. 7. 1988 and the execution application was not verified, the next date was fixed on 3. 10. 1988 for order after verification. On 3. 10. 1988 the decree holder filed a petition along with a draft deed of conveyance and plan to enable him to get the approved draft deed endorsed on the requisite stamp paper for execution and registration. As none moved the petition an order was passed by the executing Court for putting up the record as and when the petition was moved on behalf of the decree holder.

( 3 ) ON 25. 11. 1988 the decree holder filed a petition praying for fixing a date for hearing of the petition filed on 3. 10. 1988. But as the copy of the petition was not served on the judgment debtor, 19. 1. 1989 was fixed for hearing of the petition and a direction was issued to serve the copy of the petition on the judgment debtor in the mean-time. On 19. 1. 1989 the decree holder filed a copy of a notice and postal receipt along with a petition praying for recording the service of the notice upon the judgment debtor. On the same date, the petition dated 3. 10. 1988 was heard and an order was passed by the learned Assistant District Judge directing the Sherestadar to check the draft of the proposed deed and to report by the 15th of February 1989. As no report was received the next date was fixed on 4. 3. 1989 for the report of the Sherestadar.

( 4 ) ON 9. 3. 1989, the impugned order was passed indicating that the Sherestadar had already filed the report, and the draft deed was approved on the basis of an order dated 17. 2. 1989 passed on the draft deeds and accordingly, the learned advocate for the decree holder was directed to take back the approved draft and to file the same along with the original duly typed on proper stamp paper for comparing by 18. 3. 1989.

( 5 ) IT is already stated above that being aggrieved by the said order the instant appeal has been filed. The decree holder opposite party appeared and contested this appeal.

( 6 ) IN course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed out that the provisions of sub rule (2) of Rule 34 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with, that no notice in Form No. 10 of the appendix 'e' to the Code was ever sent to the judgment debtor along with the draft of the proposed deed for service and that the judgment debtor did not get any opportunity to peruse the draft and to note his objection, if any. It is also contended that no formal order of approval of the draft was passed by the Court and that the Sherestadar being a ministerial officer could not pass any order or comment as regards approval of the draft as was done in this case. Hence the learned counsel concluded that the order dated 4. 3. 1989 is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the decree-holder/respondent, on the other hand, supported the order and contended that the draft of the proposed deed was duly approved as the judgment debtor opted not to appear and contest the application filed by the decree holder. Accordingly, the learned counsel concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and it was liable to be dismissed.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, a decree was passed against the judgment debtor and the decree holder has prayed for execution of the decree which includes the execution and registration of a deed of