Execution of decrees must adhere to procedural requirements to ensure fairness and avoid unlawful property sales.

ORAL ORDER

In W.P.No.32994/2024 The petitioner in the subject petition is judgment debtor No.3. Judgment debtor No.3 is before the Court calling in question the order dated 28.10.2024 by which the application filed by the respondent In I.A.No.11 under Order XXI Rule 54 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure , comes to be allowed. The concerned Court has passed the following order:

"5. The following points arise for my consideration is as follows:

1. Whether the applicant/DHR has made out grounds for issuing warrant of attachment of schedule properties by publishing the same by way beat of tom tom as well as through paper publication?

2. Whether the applicant/DHR has made out grounds to sale of the petition schedule properties by way of auction by appointing Court Commissioner? 3. What order?

HC-KAR

6. My findings on the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the final order for the following: REASONS

7. Point No.1 and 2 :- In order to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these points together for common discussion. I have perused the entire materials available on record. The decree holder has filed this petition seeking recovery of Rs.2,79,15,476-00 as on the date of filing of the present petition; wherein the present petition has been filed on 13.04.2018, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.45/2009 against the present judgment debtors seeking the relief of Specific Performance of Contract dated 14.05.2008 and the said suit came to be decreed on 24.11.2017. As such he filed the present petition seeking the recovery of the decreetal amount. Though he has obtained a judgment and decree on 24.11.2017 but till today he is not able to enjoy the fruits of the said decree. Neither the judgment debtors nor the objectors have filed one or the other applications in this case and due to the pendency of the said applications, the decree holder is not able to get the fruits of the decree till today. The DHR has filed these above applications seeking attachment of petition schedule properties and for auction the same to recover the decreetal amount. 8. On perusal of the records it is also noticed that the Honble High Court had directed this court to dispose of the petition within 31-05-2024, thereafter as per the requisition of this court, time is extended till 11.11.2024. But till today not able to dispose of the petition due to non payment of the Judgment debtors and also not able to attach the properties as well as not able to auction the petition schedule properties in order to recover the decreetal amount. However the JDRs failed to pay the decreetal amount. On perusal of the records it is noticed HC-KAR that already the DHR had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 64 of CPC seeking the order of sale of attached properties, and sale proclamation proceedings were also taken place and already attached the petition schedule properties on 05-08-2023 and spot sale, court sale proceedings were taken place. But not able to auction the same and thereafter till today the petition schedule properties have not been attached and accordingly the DHR has filed these applications.

9. Though the JDRs have filed their objections, but they have not made out grounds to stop the proceedings regarding attachment of the petition schedule properties. The Decree holder is struggling since filing of the petition to get the fruits of the decree, but not able to get the same. As such, the DHR has made out grounds to allow the above said applications and accordingly, I answer the above point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.

10. Point No.3: In view of above findings and discussions, I proceed to pass the following.

:O R D E R:

I.A.No.11 & 29 Filed Under Order 21 Rule

54(2) R/w Sec.151 Of CPC, I.A.No.12 & 30 Filed Under Order 21 Rule 65 R/w Sec.151 Of CPC And I.A.No.13 Under Section 151 Of CPC are hereby allowed.

Ac