1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6470/2010 Ricchpal Singh Vs. The Addl. District Judge (FT) NO.3, Bikaner Dated : 26/07/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.S.Ladrecha for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner in Execution Case No.15/09 whereby notices are directed to be issued to the judgment debtor. 2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner/decree- holder before the Executing Court that since the application for execution of the decree has been filed within a period of two years from the date of passing of the decree and therefore, no notice is required to be issued, instead, the warrant for taking possession deserves to be issued. 3. The Executing Court opined that since judgment debtor has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree execution whereof is sought for, therefore, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the notice is issued to the judgment debtor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC submitted that where an application for execution is made, the Court is required to issue notice to the persons against whom execution is applied for, if the application for execution is filed more than two years after the date of the decree and therefore, the court below has 2 committed jurisdictional error in directing to issue notice to the judgment debtor. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Parvati Vs. Mohan Lal, 1997 (2) RLW (Raj.), 1295. 5. A bare perusal of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC makes it abundantly clear that notice is required to be issued to the person against whom execution is applied for inter-alia in case where the application for execution is made more than two years after the date of the decree. Precisely, this is the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Vs. Mohan Lal (supra) as well. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Executing Court is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution proceeding in accordance with law. (SANGEET LODHA), J. rp