Ashok Vs. Smt. Gyan

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

MP, 1318 of 2021, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2021

Law laid down -

Compliance of under Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC.

8. ...............So far as the compliance of Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC is concerned, it was necessary, had there been no representation at all in the Executing Court, however, when the order-sheet itself reveals that the judgment debtor appeared before the Court through her Counsel Shri Ratnesh Pal on 04.10.2019, and thereafter vanished from the scene, there is no point in again sending a notice to the judgment debtor and prolong the execution of the decree any further. It is also found that it cannot be said that the judgment debtor had no knowledge of such proceedings as she has contested the matter throughout till the Supreme Court and was well aware of the execution proceedings pending before the Executing Court, hence, her absence in the Executing Court appears deliberate. In such circumstances, t his court is of the considered opinion that as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of Order 22 of CPC, issuance of notice under Order 21 rule 34 at this juncture would cause not only unreasonable delay but would also defeat the ends of justice because furnishing a draft sale deed under Order 21 Rule 34 (2) of C.P.C. to the respondent/judgment at this stage would only be an empty formality and can be dispensed with.

Ashok Vs. Smt. Gyan