***

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 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.

(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.

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 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.

Petition dismissed.

********