BHUVER HASHAM ISMAIL Vs. AYUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI JARGELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the execution petition moved on 6.1.1983, an order dated 20.3.1989 was passed in favour of decreeholder to grant a sale certificate to him on his clearance of the debt of cooperative society and the bank. In the said order it was also stated that the respondent would take the property in question with encumbrances. Aggrieved, the respondent approached this Court with Civil Revision Application No.1095 of 1989 which came to be disposed of on 07.12.1998 with the following order:

(2.) THEREAFTER the respondent moved an application Exh.92 in Regular Dharkhast No.6 of 1983, and upon hearing the respondent and being conscious of the order dated 20.3.1989 and after recording the fact that the respondent had paid the outstandings/charges created of the bank and the fact that despite several attempt the cooperative society did not come forward claiming its charge, the Court ordered issuance of sale certificate to the respondent on 02.03.2000. This has aggrieved the judgment debtor ­ petitioner herein.

(3.) UNDER Order 21 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure ( for short "CPC" ), notice in the execution petition is contemplated only under the circumstances mentioned therein. The decree was passed on 8.3.1982 and Execution Petition No.6 of 1983 came to be moved within two years and thus no notice was required under the above provision. The execution proceedings are summary proceedings and except in the eventualities mentioned under Order 21 Rule 22 of CPC, no hearing is necessary because in a fullfledged trial the judgment debtor is already heard.