The executing court must follow the procedure laid down under Rule 32 Order 21 CPC and grant an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause regarding any disobedience of the decree.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to an order dated 18.01.2020 (Annxure P-3) passed by the Executing Court, whereby, warrant of attachment has been issued regarding few of the properties owned by the petitioner-institute.

2. The facts leading to the present case are that a suit for permanent injunction came to be filed at the instance of respondents No.l to 3/plaintiffs which was decreed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rupnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2016. The operative para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

'20. In view of my findings on aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiffs succeed and the same stands decreed with costs. Defendants are restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint, otherwise than due course of law.

Shamsher Singh & Others Vs. Director and Anr, Page No.10. Decree Sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room. '

3. After a period of almost 3 years, respondents No.l to 3/plaintiffs filed an execution application dated 04.10.2019 stating therein that the Judgment Debtors (hereinafter referred to as 'JDs') /defendants were giving threats to the decree holder to interfere and dispossess them. Relevant paras No.4 and 5 from the execution application dated 04.10.2019 are reproduced as under:

'4. That the said judgment and decree is very much within the knowledge of the defendanis/JDs from the very beginning and in spite of that the JDs are not obeying the decree and have miserably failed to obey it.

5.That for the enforcement of the said decree, the decree holder have failed the present application against JDs because all the JDs are now giving threats to the decree holders to interfere and dispossess the decree holders illegally and forcibly and further by making illegal construction into the property in question for which the JDs have no right to do so. '

4. In the aforesaid execution application, respondents No.l to 3 moved an application dated 18.01.2020, giving a list of properties owned by the JDs. Vide order dated 18.01.2020, the Executing Court ordered attachment of those properties. It is the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2020 which has been impugned by way of present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contends that the Executing Court before passing the impugned order has failed to take into account the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. He submits that in view of the aforesaid provision before passing the impugned order, Executing Court has failed to record any satisfaction to the effect that there was any willful disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, on part of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.l to 3/JDs submits that the petitioners approached the Executing Court so that they may be granted opportunity to comply with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and therefore, there was no question of recording of any such satisfaction by the Executing Court as claimed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. He also submits that perhaps the petitioners did not attach all the zimni orders passed by the Executing Court so as to show that whether any notice was ever served upon them before passing of the impugned order. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents also submits that once the decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of respondents No.l to 3/JDs, the only remedy left with them was to invoke Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find merits in the contention raised on behalf of petitioners.

8. After passing of judgment and decree dated 15.09.2016 when the execution petition was filed on 04.10.2011, before passing any order of the attachment, the learned trial Court was required to grant an opportun