K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 who were the judgment-debtors Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively in Execution Case No. 2/85 in the Court of the Munsif, Kuchinda, against the order dated 2-11-1989 passed in the said execution case rejecting their objection to the alleged delivery of possession in favour of the decreeholder-plaintiffs. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are stated as follows:- the plaintiffs Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 (of the Civil Revision) obtained a decree for partition in Title Suit No. 7 of 1971 on 23-8-1982. The final decree passed in the partition suit has not been challenged in a first appeal by any party and has become final wherein the plaintiffs were allotted Ac. 3. 85 dec. of land whereas the defendants were allotted Ac. 3. 87 dec. of land. The properties were divided by the Civil Court Commissioner during the final decree proceeding and allotment sheet show that the plaintiffs were allotted land as per Schedule I of the Commissioner's report and the defendants were allotted lands as per Schedule II of the Commissioner's report which formed part of the decree. Since the parties were entitled to part plots in the final decree proceeding the lands were delineated and the sketch map was also attached for the purpose which formed part of the decree. Therefore, there was no dispute regarding the identity of the land that was to be delivered to each party. ( 3 ) AT the instance of the plaintiff-decreeholders, the execution case was initiated in the Court of the Munsif, Kuchinda and on 30-5-89 the possession was delivered to the plaintiffs as has been reported by the process-server who was entrusted with the duty of executing the writ of delivery of possession. The judgment-debtors, namely, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have filed their objection thereafter alleging that actual possession was not delivered to the plaintiffs, no survey knowing Commissioner was deputed to demarcate the land allotted to the plaintiffs and defendants-judgment-debtors were not given any notice regarding delivery of possession and prayed for fresh and actual delivery of possession and prayed for maintaining the status quo of the land till then. In the impugned order dated 2-11-1989 the executing Court turned down the objection of the judgment-debtors on the ground that the symbolical delivery of possession amounts to physical delivery of possession and since there was delivery of possession to the decreeholder, no further direction may be given for a fresh delivery of possession. During hearing of this revision, it is argued on behalf of the judgment-debtor-petitioners that since most of the plots were part plots, the defendants were entitled to notice. It was further contended on their behalf that the judgment-debtors were actually in possession in respect of which possession was to be delivered to the decree-holder and since there was no actual physical delivery of possession they still continue to be in possession of the land and that will not amount to the delivery of possession within the meaning of O. 21, R. 35 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and unless actual delivery of possession is delivered by sending a survey knowing Commissioner who may measure andd demarcate the land, there is possibility of future litigations between the parties. The Court, therefore, had not acted properly and acted illegally in rejecting the prayer of the present petitioners. Coming to the first point regarding notice to the petitioners judgment-debtors) by the process-server who went to effect the writ of delivery of possession, the law is absolutely clear on the point. Order 21, R. 22 of the C. P. C. enjoins upon the executing Court to issue notice to the persons against whom the execution is applied for requiring him to show cause against the execution of the decree against him when the execution is intended to be done in one of the three circumstances as envisaged in that rule. This notice is not mandatory in every case. As per the proviso to this rule no such notice shall be necessary in certain cases. Besides sub-rule (2) of the said rule authorises the Court to issue process in execution of a decree without issuing notice as prescribed if for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. Besides sub-rule (2) of the said rule authorises the Court to issue process in execution of a decree without issuing notice as prescribed if for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. ( 4 ) THE object of the notice issued under O. 21, R. 22 of C. P. C. is to give a fair chance to the judgment-debtor to raise any lawful objection to the intended execution and is not a mode of enforcing the decree. Save the circumstances excepted by the Rule 22 the provisions of this rule are mandatory and issue of notice is the condition precedent to a valid execution proceeding. Thus it is well settled that in cases of total omission to issue notice the said rule where notice is required to be taken, the subsequent proceeding would be absolutely void and not merely voidable. The principle underlying the mandatory provision of the rule is that the interests which would be affected by the execution should be sufficiently represented and that an opportunity should be given for showing cause, if any, against the execution. Therefore in cases falling under Cl. (a) of sub-rule (1), no notice need be issued to a judgment-debtor who has no interest in the property against which execution is sought for and in the case falling under Cl. (b) of sub-rule (1), it is enough if notice has gone to an adult legal representative capable of representing the estate and notice to the other legal representatives may not be essential nor is any notice essential where the legal representative is on record though in another capacity. Besides it has been provided in the rule itself that no notice is necessary in cases falling within the proviso to this rule. In partition cases when final decree is passed each co-owner becomes entitled to the part of the property allotted to his share and loses his title and right to possession in the property allotted to the shares of other co-owners. Where, therefore, a co-owner in such a case applies for delivery of possession of the property allotted to him which is in possession of the other co-owner and the other co-owner dies before the possession is delivered notice under this rule to legal representatives is not necessary. Where, therefore, a co-owner in such a case applies for delivery of possession of the property allotted to him which is in possession of the other co-owner and the other co-owner dies before the possession is delivered notice under this rule to legal representatives is not necessary. This view is supported by a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1969 Raj lw 225. According to this, after the final decree, the other co-owner has no right to its possession which would be affected causing prejudice to him in the absence of notice. The consent of the judgment-debtor is not essential for the execution of a warrant for the delivery of possession under sub-rule (1) of O. 21, R. 35, C. P. C. and it is not obligatory upon the decree-holder or the executing official to apprise the judgment-debtor of the fact that the possession had been delivered to the decree-holder. All that is necessary is to deliver possession to the decree-holder, and if any resistance by a person bound by the decree is offered, then to remove him from the possession thereof. In a case reported in AIR 1935 All 938 (Gajraj Sinha v. Emperor), the Allahabad High Court held thus :"rule 35, O. 21 relates to decree for immovable property. It provides that where the decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. It is only in the case of a decree for joint possession that a proclamation by beat of drum is required. So in accordance with the provisions of Cl. (1), R. 35, O. 21, C. P. C. there was no need to give any information of actual ejectment or delivery of possession to the judgment-debtors, namely, the applicants. It cannot be said that the applicants were not aware of the ejectment proceedings. All that the applicants say is that they were not present at the time of the delivery of possession, but they do not say that they did not know of the proceedings of delivery of possession to the decree-holders. It cannot be said that the applicants were not aware of the ejectment proceedings. All that the applicants say is that they were not present at the time of the delivery of possession, but they do not say that they did not know of the proceedings of delivery of possession to the decree-holders. "order 21, Rule 23, C. P. C. deals with the procedure after issue of notice which reads thus : " (1) Where the person to whom notice is issued under (R. 22) does not appear or does not show cause to the satisfaction of the Court why the decree should not be executed, the Court shall order the decree to be executed. (2) Where such person offers any objection to the execution of the decree, the Court shall consider such objection and make order as it thinks fit. " therefore, before a writ of delivery of possession is issued, there is provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for notice to the party as is embodied in R. 23 and if no objection is given at that stage or objection has been disposed of against the judgment-debtor, the writ of delivery of possession has to be executed. When a property is delivered to a decree-holder in execution of the decree for possession, a decree is satisfied. It is however open to the decree-holder to maintain an application for possession when he alleges that the effective possession as per the decree was not given over to him by the officer who was incharge of the writ of delivery of possession. For example, when the decree-holder obtained possession against the judgment-debtor but was ineffectual against a transferee pendentelite from the judgment-debtor. For what has been stated above, this follows that after the Court issued a writ of delivery of possession to the officer to be executed, there is no further necessity for the said officer to give notice to the judgment-debtor before he executes the said writ. ( 5 ) COMING to the next question as to whether the possession that was delivered to the plaintiff, was sufficient compliance of R. 35 (1) of O. 21 of the C. P. C. if it was only a symbolical delivery of possession. ( 5 ) COMING to the next question as to whether the possession that was delivered to the plaintiff, was sufficient compliance of R. 35 (1) of O. 21 of the C. P. C. if it was only a symbolical delivery of possession. In the case of Ram Prasad Ojha v. Bakshi Bindeshwari Prasad reported in AIR 1932 Pat 145, it was held that if the property is in occupation of the judgment-debtor or of some one on his behalf etc. the possession shall be given if necessary by removing the judgment-debtor and placing the decree-holder or the auction-purchaser in occupation of the same. On the other hand if the property is of such a nature that the judgment-debtor cannot be in actual occupation of it as for instance, property in the possession of a tenant, the only mode of giving possession is by proclaiming on the spot that the possession has been given to the decree-holder or auction-purchaser. That when a decree-holder is actually put into possession of the property, everybody has been ousted from it and consequently dispossessed. On the other hand if the Court simply proclaims that the decree-holder or auction purchaser has been given possession but on account of the nature of the property they have not been placed in physical occupation of the property itself, such a delivery of possession can be binding only upon those who are parties to those proceedings or on those who claim through them (Underline has been made by me to emphasise these lines ). The difference in the mode of delivery of possession is due to the nature of the property and not on account of the difference in the nature of possession. The question is not what was the mode of delivery of possession but who has in fact been ousted by it. It is true that the term symbolical possession is applied while delivery of possession is made under O. 21, R. 35 (2) and R. 36, C. P. C. Actual possession is delivered under O. 21, R. 35 (1 ). The question is not what was the mode of delivery of possession but who has in fact been ousted by it. It is true that the term symbolical possession is applied while delivery of possession is made under O. 21, R. 35 (2) and R. 36, C. P. C. Actual possession is delivered under O. 21, R. 35 (1 ). The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Gopal Mundra v. Gulab Chand Agrawalla, reported in (1974) 40 Cut LT 213 held thus :"so far as the delivery of possession against the judgment-debtor or any person in occupation on his behalf is concerned there is no distinction between the two modes of delivery of possession. Law is well settled that as against the judgment-debtor symbolical delivery of possession amounts to actual delivery of possession. Thus, the legal position is well settled that symbolical delivery of possession against the judgment-debtor where even actual possession could have been delivered amounts to actual delivery of possession. "in Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahu Deo v. Bhaiain Sunderbans Koer, reported in AIR 1923 Pat 76, the legal position was succinctly put in the following words: " xx xx"where symbolical possession is delivered in a case where actual possession ought to have been delivered the symbolical possession will operate as actual possession. The delivery of symbolical possession even erroneously operates as actual possession against the judgment-debtor and his legal representatives. "the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to earlier also accepted this principle and held in the following words :"thus, the legal position is well settled that symbolical delivery of possession against the judgment-debtor where even actual possession could have been delivered amounts to actual delivery of possession. "in Rama Subudhi v. Bhagirathi alias Udayanath Baitharu reported in (1982) 53 Cut LT 78, a Division Bench of this Court held thus :"the Civil Procedure Code contains various provisions as to when actual, joint or symbolical possession can be given possession referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) of O. 21, R. 35 is khas or actual possession, while that referred to in sub-rule (2) and R. 36 is formal or symbolical possession. If the immovable property of which possession is directed by the decree to be delivered to the decreeholder, actual possession must be delivered to the decree-holder under sub-rule (1) of R. 35. If the immovable property of which possession is directed by the decree to be delivered to the decreeholder, actual possession must be delivered to the decree-holder under sub-rule (1) of R. 35. Where it is in possession of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same, only symbolical possession can be delivered and that is to be done under R. 36, Symbolical possession may in such cases operates as actual possession against the judgment-debtor. "the Division Bench further held by referring to a decision, reported in AIR 1961 SC 137 (Shew Bux Mohata v. Bengal Brewaries Ltd.) in the following words :"in our opinion, it is clear from the above decision that if the decree-holder is satisfied with the alleged delivery of possession, whether physical or symbolical, he cannot on a subsequent date ask for actual possession by filing a second execution petition. A prayer for fresh delivery of possession can be entertained only in cases where there was no legal, complete and effective delivery of possession on the earlier occasion. " ( 6 ) IN the present case, the decree-holder never complains of the fact that he was not given any legal, complete or effective delivery of possession and he has no grievance about the delivery of possession made over to him. It is not the case of the defendants who are the petitioners here that while giving possession to the decree-holder, the decree has not been followed and lands which are allotted to them as per Schedule II of the Commissioner's report has not been made over to them. Admittedly the parties know that the final decree passed in the partition suit was being executed and what was prayed in the execution was delivery of possession of the land to the decree-holder as per the decree. The decree refers to definite parcels of land with plot numbers and when it refers to any part plot, the details of part plot is reflected in the map attached to it being delineated. The decree refers to definite parcels of land with plot numbers and when it refers to any part plot, the details of part plot is reflected in the map attached to it being delineated. Since petitioners are the judgment-debtors, a symbolical possession in these circumstances according to the decision of the Full Bench would amount to the actual delivery of possession within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 35, C. P. C. particularly when the decreeholder has no grievance that they are not given possession of the land on account of any resistance by the judgment-debtors who might have been in possession of the land at the time of execution. A second endeavour may not be made for delivery of possession of the land which has already been delivered and the decree has been satisfied. The decreeholders are deemed to come over possession of the land allotted in their favour in the decree. The finding of the trial Court is accordingly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for an interference by this Court. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs of this revision. Revision dismissed.