SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1932 of 2000. D/d. 25.1.2005.

Smita Ganesh Bhole - Appellant

Versus

Sangli Bank Ltd. - Respondent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21 Rule 22 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 35 - Notice to show cause against execution of decree - Show-cause notice issued to appellant's husband who died during pendency of proceeding - Executing court and the High Court had rightly come to the conclusion that no further notice was required to be issued to the appellant.

[Paras 2 and 3]

Cases Referred :-

1. Kanchamalai Pathar v. Ry. Shahaji Rajah Sahib, AIR 1936 Madras 205 (FB).

2. Faizaddi Taluqdar v. Rezia Begum, AIR 1942 Calcutta 436 : 46 CWN 631.

ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - The only point to be determined in this appeal is about the service of notice to the appellant as the legal representative of the original judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"). The executing court and the High Court, in the first appeal, have held that notice was given to the original judgment-debtor and, therefore, fresh notice was not necessary.

2. The husband of the appellant was one of the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on 17-12-1987 in Special Civil Suit No. 119 of 1984. The execution petition was filed against the judgment-debtors, including Ganesh Anand Bhole, husband of the appellant. The notice, as required under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code, was issued to him. He, however, died during the pendency of the proceedings. The appellant as the legal representative was brought on record on 5-11-1996. The executing court ordered for attachment of the property on 25-4-1997, which was effected on 13-5-1997.

3. On the aforesaid facts, the executing court and the High Court had rightly come to the conclusion that no further notice was required to be issued to the appellant. The two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Kanchamalai Pathar v. Ry. Shahaji Rajah Sahib, AIR 1936 Madras 205 (FB), and Faizaddi Taluqdar v. Rezia Begum, AIR 1942 Calcutta 436 : 46 CWN 631 have no applicability to the point in issue. In this view, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

4. The amount deposited in this Court shall be transferred to the executing court to be disbursed as per the directions of that court. The parties may move necessary applications before the executing court, which would be decided in accordance with law.

Appeal dismissed with costs.