„3. An action in enforcement of an order is not void solely on the ground of the omission or non-service of a communication under paragraph 1 or on the grounds, if such service is lifted under paragraph 2, unless the debtor has suffered prejudice as a result.“ (9.5.1947). Calcutta. – Add the following paragraph 3: „(3) The failure to issue a communication in a case where notification under paragraph 1 is required, or failure to state reasons in a case where the notice provided for in paragraph 2 is omitted, shall not affect the jurisdiction of the court to enforce the judgment.“ „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). Madras and Pondicherry.- (1) In paragraph (1), the words „two years“ shall be replaced by the words „one year“ wherever they appear, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh. The Court has held that nowhere does this provision create a complete obstacle to the question of communication to the debtor.
In the present case, the Court found that the enforcement court had chosen to inform the debtor. Allahabad.- (1) Delete clause (a) of subsection (1) and, subject to subsection (1), delete the words beginning with „after more than one year“ until „applied on a previous application“; First of all, in that case, the holder of the decree lodged an application for enforcement of the decree with the enforcement court. The enforcement court sent a notice to the debtor in the presence of the lawyer of the holder of the disposition. Subsequently, the Order holder did not submit the anti-dumping coverage recorded in accordance with the court`s instructions. The order-holder`s lawyer lobbied for an ex parte judgment against the debtor. The enforcement court rejected the request of the holder of the decree and informed the debtor accordingly. (c) against the assignee or insolvency practitioner, if the party to the order has been declared insolvent, the court of enforcement shall send a notice to the person against whom enforcement is sought, requesting him to set out, at a date to be determined, the reasons why the order should not be enforced against him, provided that such notification is not required; more than two years have elapsed between the date of publication of the decree and the application for enforcement, if the request is submitted within two years from the date of the last decision against which enforcement is sought, which was issued on the basis of a previous application for enforcement, or following the application against the legal representative of the debtor, if, following a previous application for enforcement against the same person, the court has ordered enforcement against him. The court in charge of the execution of the decree will send a notice to the person against whom enforcement is sought, asking him to explain at a date to be determined why the decree should not be executed against him: Judge Alka Sarin upheld the decision of the enforcement court and stated: „. 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. 2.
The foregoing provision shall not prevent the Court from initiating proceedings for the execution of a judgment without the required notification if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the adoption of such a communication would cause undue delay or would undermine the objectives of justice. Madhya Pradesh.- The following reservation is added to paragraph (2): „Provided that no order for the execution of a decree is invalid because of the absence of communication based on this rule, unless the judicial debtor has suffered prejudice as a result of this omission.“ (24.7.1926). (2) In paragraph (1), the following is inserted after point (b): Thus, the holder of the decree applied for a civil appeal under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to the High Court, which challenged the order, which notified the debtor of 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 arguments, defence counsel relied on the judgements of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sh. Suresh Garodia v. M. Niyaz Ahmed Khan & Anr., 2020(3) RCR (Civil) 583, and Parminder Singh Sandhu v.
Maninder Singh in CR-1604 of 2015. Since the Court did not find that the enforcement court`s order was unlawful or infirm, it dismissed the present application for review. (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. (a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: „From the commencement of the proceedings, the enforcement court was fully within the scope of the law to order the continuation of the proceedings and order service of the notice of closure on the debtor,“ the court concluded. (b) against the legal representative of a party to the order or if an application for enforcement of an order filed under section 44A is filed, or (c) if the party to the order has been declared insolvent against the assignee or insolvency practitioner, or 22. Request to state reasons against enforcement in specific cases.- (1) If a request for enforcement is made: (2) Omit the letter and square brackets „(b)“; (1-6-1957). — Delete Article 22 and replace it with the following:. (a) more than two years after the publication of the order, or. (1) If a request for enforcement is made – (a) add more than two years after the date of the decree or the same as that of Allahabad (3), unless „significant“ before „prejudice“. (16-9-1960). The Court first noted that the communication in question in the application for enforcement addressed to the debtor had been issued in the presence of counsel for the holder of the decree, who at the time had never objected to the issue of a summons to the debtor.
Subsequently, the court found that the holder of the decree had not filed the anti-dumping cover registered in accordance with the court`s instructions, since the alternative address of the debtor of the judgment was Rajasthan and the lawyer of the judgment holder had subsequently requested an ex parte decision against the judicial debtor, which had been rejected by the enforcement court. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | T | Mr. | N | O | P | F | R | T | T | U | V | W | X | There | Z Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.- Like that of Punjab. (31-10-1966) Kerala, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi.- Like those of Madras. (9-6.195 9). « 22. 1. When a request for enforcement is made. `The failure to state reasons shall be regarded as an irregularity which does not constitute lack of competence.` (7.4.1932). (C) against the assignee or receiver if the party to the decision has been declared insolvent). (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or.
