MAHENDRA PAL Vs. VINAY PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the order dtd. 23/1/2023, passed by learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in S.C.C. Execution Case No. 11 of 2020, titled 'Vinay Pratap Singh Vs Mahendra Pal, on the ground that the executing court has not issued notice to the petitioner / judgment debtor in the execution proceedings, even though the same was preferred three years after the passing of the decree for possession dtd. 10/11/2017.

(2.) The petitioner / judgment debtor has placed before this Court the order-sheets in the execution proceedings, which show that repeatedly efforts were made to serve the petitioner, but, as per the service report, the petitioner was not served. Pertinently, the petitioner / judgment debtor is residing at the property which is to be recovered in execution. It is clear to me that the petitioner was evading service. There is absolutely no explanation - as to how the petitioner has suddenly become aware of the impugned order passed by the executing court, whereby warrants of possession have been issued against the petitioner / judgment debtor, returnable on 27/2/2023. Thereafter, orders have been issued on 27/2/2023 for grant of police force. The proceedings are now fixed on 5/4/2023 before the executing court for reporting execution of the decree.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 CPC by the executing court.