Notice to the judgment debtor in execution proceedings is mandated only under specific provisions; courts may dispense with it otherwise, provided it does not cause undue prejudice.

JUDGMENT

This review petition has been filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.(C)

No.1145 of 2021. A reading of the judgment sought to be reviewed will show that for reasons recorded in my judgment, the review petitioner/1st respondent was not issued with notice in O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021. Because the directions in O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021 were issued without hearing the review petitioner/1st respondent in O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021, I have heard the review petitioner at length.

2. The review petitioner suffered a decree in O.S.No.372 of

2017. That decree is dated 01.03.2021. On 23.06.2021, the decree- holder (the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021) applied for execution of the decree. On a complaint that contrary to the mandate of Order XXI R.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the executing court had issued notice to the judgment debtor, O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021 was filed before this Court essentially seeking a direction to the executing court to proceed in the manner prescribed by Order XXI R.22 of the Code. On an appreciation of the provisions of Order XXI R.22 of the Code and the judgments cited at the bar, this Court disposed of O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021 directing that, since the execution petition was filed within two years from the date of the decree sought to be executed, the executing court was not required to issue notice calling upon the judgment debtor to show cause as to why the decree should not be executed. It was directed that the execution petition together with connected applications shall be taken up for fresh consideration and proceeded with taking note of the finding of this Court.

3. Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has referred to the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 11 (2) and Order XXI Rule 17 of the Code and the provisions of the Civil Rules of Practice to contend that invariably even in respect of cases not covered by Order XXI R.22 (1) (a), (b) or (c), a notice was required especially taking into account the nature of the decree. He has referred to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court inVasant Rao v. E.Raj Reddy [MANU/AP/1155/2002] to contend that in an identical situation, the view taken by that court is that no provision prohibits the issuance of notice even in cases not covered by Order XXI R.22 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Code. He has also referred to the judgment of this Court inKrishnan Raveendra Babu v. Pappukutty Venugopalan [ 2004 (3) KLT 960 ] where this Court has taken the view that no prejudice will be caused to the decree-holder if a notice is issued even in cases not covered by Order XXI R.22 1 (a), (b) or (c) and that taking note of the provisions contained in the Civil Rules of Practice, ordinarily, the court will issue a notice to the judgment debtor. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has also pointed out that, in the guise of executing the decree without notice to the judgment debtor, substantial mischief was committed by the decree holder and considerable damage was caused to the judgment debtor.

4. Sri.Sandeep Ankarath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the review petition (the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.1145 of 2021) has referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Ulhas Pandharinath Chodankar and another v. Senior Civil Judge, “C” Court at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa [2016 KHC 3633], that of the Rajasthan High Court in Legal Representatives of Maga Ram and another v. Kana Ram and others [1993 KHC 2009], that of this Court in Jaseentha Joseph v. Louis Neeklause [1996 KHC 338], that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondepati Tejo Ananthalakshmi and another v. Kondepati Manikyam and others [2013 (6) ALD 402 : 2014 (1) ALT 226], that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kamalsingh v. Motisingh [1982 (0) MPWN 189] and finally to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others [2021 KHC 6252] to contend that the consistent view taken by a