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 44A, 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 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. (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 end of justice. HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS Allahabad.- (1) Omit clause (a) of sub-rule (1) and from the proviso to sub-rule (1) delete the words beginning from “in consequence of more than one year” to “made on any previous application in execution, or”; (2) Omit the letter and the brackets “(b)”; (1-6-1957). (3) To sub-rule (2) of this rule shall be added 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 substantiated under this rule, unless the judgment-debtor has sustained injury by reason of such omission.”
(24.7.1926). Andhra Pradesh.- Same as that of Madras. Assam and Nagaland.- Same as that of Calcutta. Calcutta.- Add the following sub-rule (3):
“(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 jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree.” Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.- Same as that of Punjab. (31-10-1966) Karnataka.- Delete Rule 22 and substitute the following: ‘22. (1) Where an application for execution is made (a) more than two years after the date of 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 the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied 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.” (30.3.1967). Kerala, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands.- Same as that of Madras. (9-6.195 9). Madhya Pradesh.- To sub-rule (2), add the following proviso: Same as that of Allahabad (3) except add “substantial” before “injury’. (16-9-1960). Madras and Pondicherry.- (1) In sub-rule (1) the words “two years” shall be substituted for the words “one year” wherever they occur, (2) In sub-rule (1) after clause (b), insert the following: “or (c) where the party to the decree has been declared insolvent, against the assignee or Receiver in insolvency.” (3) Between sub-rules (1) and (2), insert the following: “(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,” (4) Add the following proviso to sub-rule (2): “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.” Act 26 of ,968, Section 3 and Sch. Pt. 11 (w.e.f. 5-9-1968). Orissa.- (a) For sub-rule (1) substitute the following: “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”: (b) In Rule 22 add the following as sub-rule (3): “(3) Proceedings held in execution of a 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). Patna.- Same a that of Orissa. (9.5.1947). Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh.- Add the following at the end of the rule: ‘Failure to record such reasons shall be considered an irregularity not amounting to a defect in jurisdiction.” (7.4.1932).
| 