P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Rama Nand (original plaintiff). Rama Nand had instituted a suit against the respondent (defendant No. 2) and one Ramayan Dass (defendant No 1) for a declaration that Ramayan Dassi could not have sold the suit land without the consent of the plaintiff as per the custom prevalent in the area since the land was inherited by her on the death of her husband and for the consequential relief of the cancellation of mutation entry recording the sale. It appears that in the course of the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 000 to the defendants and the defendants agreed 1o handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on receipt of such sum after harvesting the standing crop On the basis of the compromise a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on July 25, 19 5, "subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before 31st October, 1975 after harvesting the existing crop standing on the land in suit and without sowing any new crop.

2. The plaintiff failed to make the payment of the sum of Rs 1000 to the defendants on or before October 31, 1975. The said sum of Rs 1 000 was, however, deposited in the court on October 25,1977, without obtaining prior permission. The plaintiff then filed an execution application on June 18, 1981, that is, nearly six years after the decree was passed. The executing court without issuing a show cause notice to the defendants Sued f warrant for possession. On the strength of the said warrant for possession the defendants were dispossessed on July 16, 1981. possession.

3. Thereupon, the defendants filed the objection petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, out of which this revision petition arises alleging, inter aha, that in view of non-compliance with the provision of Order 21 Rule 22 the proceedings which culminated into the dispossession of the defendants or anyone of them were illegal and invalid Certain other pleas were also raised with which we are not concerned at the present stage and I must be taken to have expressed no opinion as regards those pleas. The executing court held in favour of the defendants as regards the plea based on Order 21, Rule 22 and held that the proceeding which culminated into the dispossession of defendants or anyone of them was illegal and invalid. 4 The short question which arises for consideration is whether then, is any jurisdiction^ error m the decision recorded by the executing court. The fact that the execution proceedings were instituted nearly six years after the passing of the decree is not and cannot be disputed The further It that no show cause notice was served on the defendants (judgment-debtors) before the warrant for possession was issued nor was the service of the show cause notice dispensed with by an order of the court is also not in dispute. Order 21, Rule 22, sub-rule,(i) provides for a notice to show cause to issue against execution in certain cases and one of the cases in which such notice is necessary is where an application for execution is made "more than two years after the date of the decree". There is a proviso which is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and it need not detain us. Sub rule (2), which is in the nature of an over-riding provision, enacts that nothing in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, "if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice". An amendment made in sub-rule (2), which applies in Himachal Pradesh, further enacts that failure to record such reason shall be considered an irregularity not amounting to a defect in jurisdiction.

5. It is