HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S .B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar Miscellaneous Petition No.1318 of 2021 Ashok S/o Nemichand Patni Versus Smt. Gyan W/o Late Dr. Indra Bhargav (Case was heard on 16/06/2021)

Counsel for the : Shri Yogesh Mittal, Counsel for the petitioner.

petitioner Whether approved : Yes for reporting Law laid down :

Compliance of under Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC.

8. ...............So far as the compliance of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC is concerned, it was necessary, had there been no representation at all in the Executing Court, however, when the order-sheet itself reveals that the judgment debtor appeared before the Court through her Counsel Shri Ratnesh Pal on 04.10.2019, and thereafter vanished from the scene, there is no point in again sending a notice to the judgment debtor and prolong the execution of the decree any further. It is also found that it cannot be said that the judgment debtor had no knowledge of such proceedings as she has contested the matter throughout till the Supreme Court and was well aware of the execution proceedings pending before the Executing Court, hence, her absence in the Executing Court appears deliberate. In such circumstances, t his court is of the considered opinion that as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of Order 22 of CPC, issuance of notice under Order 21 rule 34 at this juncture would cause not only unreasonable delay but would also defeat the ends of justice because furnishing a draft sale deed under Order 21 Rule 34 (2) of C.P.C. to the respondent/judgement at this stage would only be an empty formality and can be dispensed with.

Significant : 8 paragraph numbers

J U D G M E N T

(Case was heard on 16/06/2021)

Post for

01/07/2021 (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE Pankaj HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S .B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar Miscellaneous Petition No.1318 of 2021 Ashok S/o Nemichand Patni Versus Smt. Gyan W/o Late Dr. Indra Bhargav ***************

Shri Yogesh Mittal,Counsel for the petitioner.

* * * * *

O R D E R

( Passed on 01/07/2021 )

Heard through video conferencing.

Heard on the question of admission.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/decree holder seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. It is therefore humbly prayed that to issue appropriate direction/order to the Executing Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without any further procedural compliance or delay treating that respondent has no objection in execution thereof as respondent failed to appear in the proceeding.

B. To take the execution case on daily basis and to execute the decree with further direction to the Learned District Judge, Indore to observe the compliance of this Hon'ble Court direction and if necessary than to take appropriate steps to transfer the case in his Court for such compliance.

C. Costs of the Petition be awarded to the petitioner from the respondents.

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just in the facts of the present case be granted in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he had filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement executed between the parties in the year 1997, wherein the decree was passed on 29.09.2000 and it was ordered that the plaintiff shall tender the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,65,000/- to the defendant and in case of refusal by the defendant, the amount shall be deposited in the Court with 12% interest on the remaining amount and after this condition being complied with, the defendant shall execute the sale deed of House No.148 of Jaora Compound in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder and also participate in the registration process before the Sub-Registrar Property Assurance Office. The aforesaid decree was assailed by the judgment debtor in First Appeal No.855 of 2000 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 20.09.2018 and an S.L.P. No.23686 of 2019 preferred against the aforesaid judgment