Indian Laws in English

The Code Of Civil Procedure 1908
Order 21 :
Rule 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]
4.[(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 1.[two years] having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within 1.[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.
State Amendment :
High Court Amendments-[Allahabad] :
(i) Omit clause (a) of sub-rule (1) and delete the words beginning from "in consequence of more than one year" to "made on any previous application for execution, or" from the proviso.
(ii) Omit the letter and the brackets "(b)".-(1-6-1957).
(iii) To sub-rule (2) of this rule, add the following proviso:
"Provided that no order for the execution of a decree shall be invalid by reason of the omission to issue a notice under this rule, unless the judgment-debtor has sustained substantial injury by reason of such omission."-(24-7-1926).
[Andhra Pradesh] :
Same as that of Madras.
[Calcutta] :
Add the following as sub-rule (3) to rule 22, Order 21:
"(3) Omission to issue a notice in a case where notice is required under sub-rule (1), or to record reasons in a case where notice is dispensed with under sub-rule (2), shall not affect the jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree."
[Delhi] :
Same as that of Punjab.
[Gauhati] :
Same as that of Calcutta.
[Gujarat] :
For "one year", substitute "two years" wherever they occur.-(17-8-1.961).
[Himachal Pradesh] :
Same as that of Punjab.
[Karnataka] :
Delete rule 22 and substitute the following:-
"Rule 22. (1) Where an application for execution is made
(a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or
(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree, or
(c) where the party to the decree has been declared insolvent, against the Assignee or Receiver in Insolvency, or
(d) for the execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44-A of this Code, 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 two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution, if theapplication is made within 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) Where from the particulars mentioned in the application in compliance with rule 11(2) (ff) of this Order or otherwise the Court has information that the decree-holder has transferred any part of his interest in the decree, the Court shall issue notice of the application to all parties to such transfer, other than the petitioner, where he is a party to the transfer.
(3) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rules shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice hereby prescribed, if for reasons to be recorded in writing the Court considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice:
Provided that no order for the execution of a decree shall be invalid owing to the omission of the Court to issue a notice as required by sub-rule (1) or to record its reasons where notice is dispensed with under sub-rule (3), unless the judgment-debtor has sustained substantial injury as a result of such omission."-(R.O.C. No. 2526/1959, dated 9-2-1967).
[Kerala] :
Same as that of Madras-(9-6-1959).
[Madhya Pradesh] :
To sub-rule (2), add the following proviso:
"Provided that no order for the execution of a decree shall be invalid by reason of the omission to issue a notice under this rule, unless the judgment-debtor has sustained substantial injury by reason of such omission."-(16-9-1960).
[Madras] :
For rule 22, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:
"Rule 22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.-(1) Where an application for execution is made
(a) more than (two years) after the date of the decree; or
(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree (or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44-A); or
(c) where the party to the decree has been declared insolvent, against the Assignee or Receiver in Insolvency, 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 two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution, if the application is made within 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.
(1-A) Where from the particulars mentioned in the application in compliance with rule 11 (2) (ff) supra or otherwise the Court has information that the original decree-holder has transferred any part of his interest in the decree, the Court shall issue notice of the application to all parties to such transfer, other than the petitioner, where.he is a party to the transfer.
(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) 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:
Provided that no order for execution of a decree shall be invalid owing to the omission of the Court to record its reasons unless the judgment-debtor has sustained, substantial injury as a result of such omission."-(5-9-1968).
[Orissa] :
Same as that of Patna.
[Patna] :
For sub-rule (1) of rule 22, substitute the following sub-rule:
"Where an application for execution is made in writing under rule 11(2), 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."
Add the following as sub-rule (3):
"(3) Proceedings held in execution of decree shall not be invalid solely by reason of any omission to issue or failure to serve a notice under sub-rule (1) or to record reasons where such notice is dispensed with under sub-rule (2) unless the judgment-debtor has sustained injury, thereby."-(9-5-1947).
[Punjab and Haryana].-In rule 22, the words "two years" shall be substituted for the words "one year" wherever they occur.
Add the following proviso at the end of the rule:
"Failure to record such reasons shall be considered an irregularity not amounting to a defect in jurisdiction."
--------
1. Substituted by Act 104 of 1976, section 72, for “one year” (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
2. Inserted by Act 8 of 1937, section 3.
3. Inserted by Act 104 of 1976, section 72 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
4. Inserted by Act 104 of 1976, section 72 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).       

INSTALL Android APP

*Note : All content on this website is for only educational purpose do not use it any where as legel activities and Publisher or owener is not responsible for any mistake if any mistake please suggest us. we will try to improve that.