Mandatory Notice Under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC Must Be Issued If Execution Exceeds Two Years Post-Decree.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, challenging orders dated 23rd December 2025 and 20th February 2026 passed by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court had issued warrants of attachment against the petitioner’s movable properties in execution proceedings (Ex. No. 213/2025).

The underlying decree was passed on 24th November 2014, while the execution petition was filed in November 2025—a gap of approximately eleven years.

The Trial Court issued the attachment warrants without first serving a show-cause notice to the Judgment Debtor, despite the lapse of more than two years since the decree.

1. Whether the Execution Court is mandatorily required to issue a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC when an execution application is filed more than two years after the date of the decree

2. Whether the Execution Court can dispense with such notice without recording specific reasons as mandated under Order XXI Rule 22(2) of the CPC

Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule mandates that where an execution application is made more than two years after the date of the decree, the Court "shall issue a notice" to the person against whom execution is applied for, requiring them to show cause why the decree should not be executed.

Under Sub-rule (2), the Court may dispense with this notice only if it records reasons showing that the notice would cause "unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice".

The High Court observed that because the execution petition was filed in 2025 for a 2014 decree, the two-year threshold under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC was exceeded, making the issuance of a notice mandatory.

Upon reviewing the Trial Court’s impugned order, the High Court found that the Execution Court merely noted the "Report of the Nazir" regarding the delay but proceeded to issue warrants of attachment without recording any reasons for dispensing with the mandatory notice.

The Court determined that the failure to record reasons as required by Order XXI Rule 22(2) rendered the impugned order unsustainable in law.

The Court held that since the petitioner has now entered an appearance and undertaken to appear before the Trial Court on 9th July 2026, the Execution Court shall proceed with the execution in accordance with the law while leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open.