AT CHANDIGARH (140 Date of Decision:-08.12.2025 Girnar Impex Limited and another … Petitioners Versus M/s Darvesh Sea Air Transport and another …. Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioners (through video conferencing)

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court (Annexure P-4), whereby the notice to the judgment-debtor was dispensed with. The petition further seeks to set aside the subsequent order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-6), wherein the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 20.05.2025 was dismissed. The revision is preferred on the ground that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The respondent/decree-holder filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed by the learned Court. The petitioner–company filed an appeal against the said decree, which is still pending, challenging both the decree in favor of the plaintiff and the dismissal of the counter-claim filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed for execution of the decree dated 07.03.2025. Initially, notices were issued to the petitioner on two occasions, namely 09.05.2025 and 12.05.2025, in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC. However, as the notices could not be served and the petitioners remained unaware of the execution proceedings, the Executing Court, in purported exercise of its discretion, dispensed with the service of notice and proceeded to issue warrants for attachment of the petitioner’s property.

2.1. The petitioners came to know about the execution proceedings and attachment only in late July 2025, and on 04.08.2025, they moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 20.05.2025. The application, however, was dismissed.

2.2. Both the aforesaid orders are assailed in the present revision petition on the grounds that the dispensation of notice was in clear violation of Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC. It is contended that once the Court directs issuance of notice, it becomes functus officio in relation to such procedural mandate and cannot thereafter dispense with the service of notice. By doing so, the Court acted in contravention of the procedural requirements mandated by law, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioners.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length through video conferencing and have meticulously examined the record in its entirety.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that the learned Executing Court was not competent to dispense with the service of notice, as doing so amounts to a clear violation of Sub- Rule II of Rule 22, Order XXI CPC. It is further contended that once the Executing Court had issued the notice, it became functus officio with respect to that procedural mandate and could not thereafter rescind or circumvent the same. For the purposes of deciding the present revision petition, the relevant provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC are extracted as under:-

“22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.—

(1) Where an application for execution is made—

(a) more than 1 [two years] after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree 2 [or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44A], 3 [or]

(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent,] the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed a