“Provided that no order for the execution of a judgment is void because the judge has not recorded his reasons, unless the debtor has suffered significant prejudice as a result of that omission.” Act 26 of .968, section 3 and Sch. Pt. 11 (w.e.f. 5-9-1968). (2) In sub-rule 1, the following is inserted after point (b): Madhya Pradesh.- The following reservation is added to paragraph (2): The court of execution of the decree notifies the person against whom enforcement is sought, requesting him to explain, on a date to be determined, the reasons why the judgment should not be enforced against him: Since the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order of the enforcement court, it dismissed the present application for review of the proceedings. (3) In paragraph (2) of this article, the following reservation Allahabad is added: (1) omit subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) and delete from the reservation in paragraph (1) the words beginning with “after more than one year” with “executed on a previous request”; “However, no order for the execution of a judgment shall be void on the ground that a communication based on this rule has been omitted, unless the debtor has suffered prejudice as a result of such an omission.” (24.7.1926). Thus, the holder of the decree appealed to the High Court with an application for a civil appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which challenged this order, which notified the debtor of the judgment. “As soon as the proceedings were initiated, the enforcement court was entirely within the scope of the law to order the continuation of the proceedings and order the service of the notice on the debtor,” the court concluded. Madras and Pondicherry. – (1) In paragraph 1, the words `two years` shall be replaced by the words `one year` wherever they appear.

Judge Alka Sarin upheld the decision of the enforcement court and said: ” the enforcement court`s reasoning that, after notification to the debtor, the proceedings could not be terminated solely at the request of the holder of the decree and that the holder of the decree had opposed the adoption of the order, which should have been done at first instance and not if the service had already been issued; cannot be blamed. Referring to the provisions of Order 21, CPC Rule 22, the Court held that nowhere does this provision create a complete obstacle to the issuance of a notice to the debtor. In the present case, the Court found that the enforcement court had chosen to inform the debtor. Calcutta. – Add the following paragraph (3): “(3) The failure to issue a communication in a case where communication is required under paragraph (1) or the indication of reasons in a case where the notice referred to in paragraph (2) is revoked shall not affect the jurisdiction of the court to enforce the judgment.” The applicants` lawyer argued that the eviction order was issued on 14 September 2021 and that, therefore, no notification from the judgement debtor was required in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 CCP. In support of his argument, the lawyer relied on the judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the cases of Sh. Suresh Garodia vs. Mr. Niyaz Ahmed Khan & Anr., 2020(3) RCR (Civil) 583, and Parminder Singh Sandhu vs.

Maninder Singh in CR-1604 of 2015. (2) If, on the basis of the information referred to in the application under Rule 11(2)(ff) of this Order, or otherwise, the court becomes aware that the holder of the Order has transferred part of his interest in the Order, the Court shall notify all parties to the assignment of the application except the applicant. if he is involved in the transfer. 2. The above provision shall not prevent the court from instituting proceedings for the enforcement of an order without issuing the prescribed notice if, for reasons of record, it considers that the giving of such notice would result in undue delay or would nullify the termination of justice. Provided that such notification is not necessary because more than two years have elapsed between the date of the decision and the application for enforcement, if the request is made within two years of the date of the last order against the party against whom enforcement is sought, which was made on the basis of a previous application for enforcement, or as a result of the application against the legal representative of the debtor, if the court ordered enforcement against him on the basis of a previous application for enforcement against the same person.