THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6122 OF 2009 DATED:15-11-2010. Between K.Mallikarjuna Naidu … Petitioner And 1.M/s Margadarshi Chit Fund Ltd and others …Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6122 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 29-10-2009 in O.E.P.No.39 of 2008 in O.P.No.33 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Order XXI Rule 22 CPC has not been complied with, that as the execution of the decree is beyond two years, notice to the J.Dr is mandatory and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the proviso as amended by the Madras High Court, which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, would go to show that the Court after recording reasons can dispense with the notice and therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order. 4. The underlying object of giving notice to the judgment- debtor under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC is not only to afford him an opportunity to put forward objections, if any, against the maintainability of execution petition but also to prevent his being taken by surprise and to enable him to satisfy the decree before execution is issued against him. 5. It is not in dispute that decree was passed on 15-12-2004. Though it is contended by the petitioner that no notice was served in the suit on him, but that cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. That is the matter to be decided by the trial Court. The execution petition was filed on 08-09-2008. Thereafter, the property of the petitioner has been attached by order, dated 26-09-2008. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC reads that provided that no order for the execution of a decree shall be invalid by reason of the ommission to issue a notice under the rule, unless the J.Dr has sustained substantial injury by reason of such omission. Even if no reasons are assigned in the order for execution of the decree, that cannot be invalid unless the J.Dr sustained substantial injury. That has not been explained by the J.Dr. By virtue of invalid attachment, he sustained substantial injury. Though this aspect of the case is stated in the affidavit, that aspect has not been considered by the executing Court in terms of proviso to sub-rule 2 of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC as amended by the Madras High Court, which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition in terms of proviso to sub-rule 2 of Order XXI Rule 2 CPC after giving due opportunity to both parties and till then status quo of the property has to be maintained. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the ex parte decree at the first instance within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter dispose of the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:15.11.2010 Hsd