Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court in Ex.F.A. Nos. 5, 6, and 7 of 2025 disposed of three connected Execution First Appeals filed by the judgment debtors challenging the attachment of immovable properties in execution of a decree. The Court held that objections raised by the judgment debtors, even though not formally filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), should be treated as applications under that provision. The Court remanded the matter to the execution court for determination of issues relating to execution, discharge, and satisfaction of the decree. Pending such adjudication, the Court directed that further steps for the sale of attached properties shall not be taken.
Facts
The appeals arose from execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder based on a decree passed in Arb. Appeal Nos. 38, 39, and 40 of 2015, which had been settled through a mediation and recorded by the Court in 2021. The decree holder alleged that the judgment debtors had failed to comply with the terms of the decree, prompting applications for attachment and sale of their immovable properties. The execution court, by orders dated 16.12.2024, allowed the applications for attachment, prompting these appeals.
The judgment debtors contested the execution proceedings claiming that the decree had been satisfied. They also argued that the execution petitions were not maintainable due to the absence of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, as they were filed more than two years after the decree date.
Issues
- Whether the decree had been satisfied by the judgment debtors.
- Whether the execution proceedings were vitiated by failure to issue notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC.
- Whether objections not filed as a formal application under Section 47 CPC could nonetheless be treated as such.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants contended that the decree had been fully satisfied and therefore the execution petitions should be dismissed. They further argued that the execution petitions, being filed after more than two years from the decree date, required notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. The non-issuance of such notice, they submitted, rendered the proceedings void. Additionally, they sought lifting of the attachments and argued that the execution court failed to consider material evidence of satisfaction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The decree holder argued that the decree had not been satisfied and the execution was validly initiated. They emphasized that objections raised by the judgment debtors did not amount to a valid application under Section 47 CPC. They also contended that non-issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC was not fatal and could be waived or dispensed with by the court.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that under Section 47 CPC, all questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree must be decided by the execution court. Although the judgment debtors had not filed a formal application under Section 47, their objections filed in response to the attachment applications contained sufficient grounds to be treated as such.
Further, the Court referred to Rule 285 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which mandates that proceedings under Section 47 be disposed of in a manner akin to a suit. Thus, the execution court was directed to consider all such objections comprehensively.
On the issue of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, the Court cited its previous rulings to hold that failure to issue or record reasons for dispensing with such notice was not fatal to the execution proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
- A.K. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala & Ors., AIR 1964 Ker. 158
Held that non-issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC or absence of reasons for its dispensation is not fatal to the execution. - Jaseentha Joseph v. Louis Neeklause, 1996 (2) KLT 452
Reaffirmed that failure to comply strictly with Rule 22 of Order XXI is not necessarily invalidating, and waiver is permissible.
These precedents were cited to uphold the validity of the execution proceedings despite procedural objections raised by the appellants.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that although the appellants did not move a formal application under Section 47 CPC, their objections squarely raised issues concerning satisfaction of the decree. In such circumstances, “it would be sufficient if the objections… be treated as applications under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the execution court determines all questions regarding execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree.”
As for the failure to issue notice under Order XXI Rule 22, the Court held that the same “is not fatal,” citing binding precedent. The execution court was instructed to conduct the enquiry “untrammelled by any observations or findings in the impugned order.”
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the appeals with the following directions:
- Objections filed by the appellants shall be treated as applications under Section 47 CPC.
- Execution court shall determine all questions relating to satisfaction of the decree as per Rule 285 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
- Until such determination is made, the execution court shall not proceed with the sale of attached properties.
- Execution court shall endeavor to expedite the adjudication of the objections.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the procedural scope of Section 47 CPC, confirming that objections, even when not formally styled as applications, must be treated as such if they raise issues of satisfaction of a decree. It also reinforces the principle that procedural defects, like the absence of a Rule 22 notice, do not necessarily nullify execution proceedings, provided the rights of the parties are not materially prejudiced. The ruling ensures that execution proceedings remain substantively just, rather than defeated by technicalities.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- A.K. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala & Ors., AIR 1964 Ker. 158
Relevance: Established that failure to issue notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC is not fatal, supporting the Court’s rejection of the appellant’s procedural challenge. - Jaseentha Joseph v. Louis Neeklause, 1996 (2) KLT 452
Relevance: Held that waiver of Rule 22 notice is permitted; applied to dismiss the argument that the absence of such notice invalidated the execution.
These cases were pivotal in upholding the execution process and ensuring that objections are adjudicated on merit, rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.