[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Girnar Impex Limited And Another vs M/S Darvesh Sea Air Transport Co And ... on 8 December, 2025
AT CHANDIGARH
(140) CR-9031-2025
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
1 of 6
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
2 of 6
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 against him :
Provided :-
that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of
more than 2 [two years] having elapsed between the date of
the decree and the application for execution if the
application is made within 2 [two years] from the date of
the last order against the party against whom execution is
applied for, made on any previous application for
execution, or in consequence of the application being made
against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor if
upon a previous application for execution against the same
person the Court has ordered execution to issue against
him.
3 of 6
(2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to
preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of
a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if,
for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of
such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would
defeat the ends of justice."
5. Proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC clearly
provides that no notice is required where the execution petition is filed
within two years from the date of the decree. In the present case, the
execution petition was filed well within this two-year period. Therefore, in
terms of the proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC, the
Executing Court was fully competent to dispense with the service of notice
upon the Judgment-Debtor when the execution petition was filed within the
prescribed period.
5.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that, although notices were
initially ordered to be served upon the petitioner-JDs, the service of notice
was subsequently dispensed with vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2025,
which is alleged to contravene the provisions of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 22 of
Order XXI CPC. However, a careful reading of Rule 22 shows that Sub-Rule
2 becomes applicable only when service of notice is otherwise required
under Sub-Rule 1 in terms of Clauses A, B, or C. When the execution
petition falls within the ambit of the proviso to Sub-Rule 1, Sub-Rule 2 does
not apply. Even when Sub-Rule 2 is attracted, the Court has discretion to
dispense with notice if it records reasons for doing so, particularly if
issuance of the notice would cause unreasonable delay or defeat the ends of
justice.
4 of 6
5.2. Since the present execution petition was filed within two years
from the date of the decree, it squarely falls under the proviso to Sub-Rule 1
of Rule 22, and the learned Executing Court was therefore competent to
dispense with service of notice upon the petitioner. The Court's exercise of
such discretion does not warrant interference under the revisional
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
5.3. As regards the contention that the Court had become functus
officio, the same is wholly misconceived. The Court continues to have
jurisdiction over the execution proceedings until the decree is either satisfied
or the execution petition is dismissed. A Civil Court retains the power to
review its own orders, and in the present case, when service upon the
petitioners could not be effected on two consecutive occasions, the Court
validly exercised its discretion to dispense with service to prevent undue
delay in execution.
5.4. It is also pertinent to note that, in view of the mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. V.
Rajamani & Anr., SLP (C) Nos. 8490-8492 of 2020, execution
proceedings are required to be disposed of within six months. Considering
the delay in effecting service and the need for timely execution, the Court
rightly exercised its discretion to dispense with service of notice upon the
petitioner-JDs.
5.5. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
orders passed by the learned Executing Court. The revision petition is,
therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed.
6. However, the observations made here-in-above shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the substantive
5 of 6
dispute. They are strictly confined to the limited issues arising in the present
proceedings and are intended solely for the purpose of addressing the
controversy under consideration.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
08.12.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
6 of 6
