The main legal point established in the judgment is that notice for execution of a decree is not indispensable in all cases and can be dispensed with if it would cause unnecessary delay or defeat the ends of justice.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 03.10.2017 passed in E.P. No. 4 of 2016 in O.S. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondents are the decree-holders.

2. The respondents have filed E.P. No. 4 of 2016 for sale of the petition mentioned property for realisation of the decree amount in O.S. No. 2 of 2003.

3. Resisting the execution petition, the petitioner has filed counter.

4. Before the Execution Court, no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 to R9.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Execution Court ordered that the respondents are entitled to sale of the petition mentioned property for realisation of the decree amount. The Execution Court has also ordered Test qua the petition mentioned property by 03.11.2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

6. I heard Mr. P. Athimoola Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Sasi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when execution petition was filed two years after passing of the decree, it is mandatory on the part of the Execution Court to send notice to the respondents therein, but in the case on hand, the Execution Court has failed to send notice. He would submit that the Execution Court did not comply with the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 22(2) of C.P.C. and has not recorded any finding or reasons before issuing notice to the judgment-debtor that issue of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of C.P.C. will cause unreasonable delay or will defeat ends of justice. According to the learned counsel, only after recording such reasons, the Court can take further steps in the matter of execution of the decree and recording of reason was the condition precedent or sine qua non for further proceedings with the decree. The learned counsel further submitted that the Execution Court has passed an order mechanically without application of mind and prayed for setting aside the same. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel cited the following decisions:

(i) Satyanarain Bajoria and Others vs. Ramnarain Tibrewal and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1583

(ii) Nachayee Ammal and Others vs. Pichaimuthu, 1992 (1) LW 288

(iii) Rm P. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar vs. Pl. Ar. Lakshmnan Chettiar, 1950 Supreme (Mad) 150

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Execution Court has rightly ordered sale of the petition mentioned property for realisation of the decree amount and there is no need to interfere with the same.

9. It appears that the respondents have sought for sale of the petition mentioned property for realisation of the decree amount from the petitioner. While the first respondent was alive, he had filed E.P. No. 37 of 2004 to attach and sell the petition mentioned property for realisation of the decree amount and the said execution petition was closed on 06.8.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent filed E.P. No. 70 of 2008 for arrest of the petitioner for realisation of the amount. In E.P. No. 70 of 2008, the Executing Court ordered arrest of the petitioner and pursuant to the order, the petitioner was arrested and detained in civil prison from 12.01.2010 to 31.01.2010 and finally, E.P. No. 70 of 2008 was closed on 11.01.2010. Since the decree amount was not realised, again the first respondent filed E.P. No. 4 of 2016 praying to attach and sell the petition mentioned property. Pending E.P. No. 4 of 2016, the first respondent died and his legal heirs were brought on record.

10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the present execution petition was filed after seven years from the closure of E.P. No. 37 of 2004, the same is not maintainable and further, n