Parties must be afforded a fair hearing in execution proceedings, adhering strictly to procedural requirements as outlined in relevant civil procedure laws.

ORAL ORDER

The proposed Judgment Debtors in Execution Petition No.4/2024 pending consideration before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, are before this Court challenging an order dated 18.01.2025 issuing Commissioner Warrant to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the assignee of the decree holders.

2. A suit in O.S.No.117/2001 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favor of the predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 9. A compromise was entered into before this Court in R.S.A.No.7247/2012 in terms of which, the vendor had agreed to convey the property to the predecessor of the respondent Nos.2 to 9. Later, the predecessor of respondent Nos.2 to 9 assigned the decree infavour of respondent No.1 in terms of a sale deed dated 21.04.2022. The respondent No.1 thus initiated execution proceedings in EP No.4/2024.

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.10 to 31, who are the judgment debtors executed a power of attorney infavour of the petitioner No.1 herein in respect of the very same property that was the subject matter of the agreement of sale and the decree passed in R.S.A.No.7247/2012. The petitioner No.1, based on the said power of attorney, executed a sale deed in his own favor and then conveyed it to the petitioner No.2 and one Sanganna.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed an application to implead the petitioners herein as well as Sanganna as judgment debtor Nos.24, 25 and 26. The notice of the application was served on the proposed Judgment Debtors No.24 and the petition was listed for his appearance on 11.12.2024. An application was also filed for interim injunction against the proposed Judgment Debtors No.25 and 26. The executing Court in terms of the order dated 18.12.2024 granted an order of injunction against the proposed Judgment Debtors No.25 and 26 and restrained them from alienating the suit schedule property. The execution petition was then adjourned to 18.01.2025. The execution petition was then advanced to 08.01.2025 and an application under Order XXVI Rule 10 of C.P.C was filed. The case was then adjourned to 18.01.2025. On the said day the proposed Judgment Debtors No.25 and 26 entered appearance through counsel. The notice to the proposed Judgment Debtors No.24, which was ordered by substituted service through paper publication, was also accepted. Based on the request of the respondent No.1/assignee of Decree holder, I.A.No.7 filed by him under Order XXVI, Rule 10 was considered and the same was allowed and an advocate was appointed as a Commissioner to execute a sale deed in his favour. Being aggrieved by the said order the Judgment Debtors No.24 and 25 are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were impleaded by the decree holders in the execution petition and the case was listed on 18.01.2025. He submits that even before the petitioners could file objections to; (i) the application to implead them in the execution petition, (ii) the execution petition and (iii) the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC, the executing Court allowed the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 and appointed a Commissioner to execute a sale deed. He further contended that the executing Court did not comply the procedure set out under Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC and a draft of the sale deed was also not furnished. Therefore, he contends that the entire procedure adopted by the executing Court is improper and hence, the same is liable to be undone by setting aside the order dated 18.01.2025 and to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the application to implead them in the proceedings and contest the execution petiti