Judgment :- Koshy, J. Revision petitioner is the 13th judgment debtor in O.S. No. 140 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. The decree holders filed E.P. No. 376 of 1994 on 16.2.1994 for delivery of the decree schedule item No. 1. The suit was a partition suit. The schedule property item No.1 belonged to the first decree holder. The shares allotted to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were delivered on 31.7.1990. The first judgment debtor died. His legal representatives are additional judgment debtors 11 to 17. When the execution petition was filed, they filed objections stating that notice under 0.21 R.22 was not issued to the additional judgment debtors 11 to 17 who are the legal representatives of the first judgment debtors. It was also contended mat in the execution petition other judgment debtor were not parties. Earlier, E.P. No. 150 of 1989 was filed and the same was dismissed on 5.9.1991. Execution petition number was not mentioned in the application. It was further contended that the property now sought to be delivered is in possession of one Titus who claims to be the tenant of plaint schedule item No. 1. He is also not made a party. The above objections raised by the additional judgment debtors 11 to 17 were overruled and delivery of item No.1 of plaint schedule property was ordered. This order is challenged in this revision petition. 2. According to the revision petitioner, notice under 0.21 R.22 is mandatory. Since no notice was issued under 0.21 R.22 the execution petition will not lie. On that ground alone, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. The other grounds, which were contested by filing objections, were also pressed. For understanding the nature of the contention, 0.21 R.22 is quoted below: "22. Since no notice was issued under 0.21 R.22 the execution petition will not lie. On that ground alone, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. The other grounds, which were contested by filing objections, were also pressed. For understanding the nature of the contention, 0.21 R.22 is quoted below: "22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases - (1) Where an application for execution is made (a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree, or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of S.44 A, or (c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, if upon a previous application of execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him. (2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice". Based on the above section, it was argued that rule is mandatory and notice should " be issued when an application is filed two years after the date of decree. Here, the execution petition is made against the legal representatives of a party to the decree two years after the date of decree. For accepting the petition notice under 0.21R. 22 ought to have been issued. Here, the execution petition is made against the legal representatives of a party to the decree two years after the date of decree. For accepting the petition notice under 0.21R. 22 ought to have been issued. Based upon various decisions, it was argued that eventhough revision petitioners filed objections and they were parties to the execution petition in the absence of notice under 0.21 R.22 the entire proceedings are void. 3. In Rajagopala Aiyar v. Ramanujachariyar (AIR 1924 Madras 431) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that where on an application for execution falling under 0.21 R.22 to which clause 2 of that rule is not applied, a sale in execution is held without issuing the notice provided for in clause the sale is absolutely void. Various decisions including the Privy Council decision in Raghunath Das V. Sundar Das Khetri (AIR 1914 P.C.129) were considered in the Full Bench decision. 4. In the decision in Jharkhand M. & L Ltd. v. Nand Kishore (AIR 1969 Patna 228) it was held that in an application for execution service of notice under 0.21 R.22 is imperative if the execution proceedings is against the legal representatives after the time fixed. This position was reinstated in the decision in The Presidency Industrial Bank Ltd. v. The Hindustan Leather Industries Ltd, (AIR 1969 Bombay 84). In the decision in Natarajan v. M/s. Chandmull Amarchand by Power-of-Attorney, K.Malopclumd and another ((1971) 1 M.L.J. 474) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that where notice is necessary under 0.21, R.22, and such a notice has not been issued, the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. It followed the earlier Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court. In Ramlal Sabu and others v. ML Ramiaand another (AIR 1947 Patna 454) it was held by a Full Bench that under 0. 21, R.22 as amended by Patna High Court, it is no doubt the duty of every Court to see that a notice issued by it is served in the manner required by law. This however, is a matter between the Court and its officers. The irregularity in the service of notice does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court executing the decree and does not make the sale held in execution wholly void but renders it only voidable. This however, is a matter between the Court and its officers. The irregularity in the service of notice does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court executing the decree and does not make the sale held in execution wholly void but renders it only voidable. But it was argued by the petitioner that notice under 0.21 R.22 is necessary and without that execution cannot be proceeded. Therefore, the order passed for delivery of property is illegal. 5. The object of the notice under this rule is not only to furnish an opportunity to the person concerned to urge any objection he may have to the maintainability of the execution petition, but also to prevent his being taken by surprise and to enable him to satisfy the decree before execution is issued against him. It is contended by the respondents that revision petitioner was a party to the execution petition and notice was given to her and she filed objection. Detailing all possible objections, no prejudice is caused to her by the procedure followed. 6. Respondents relied on the Full Bench decision of the Travancore-Cochin High "Court in Chacko Pyli v. lype Varghese (1956 TRAV-CO 147). Considering the decision of the Privy Council, Court observed as follows: "One view is that if the notice could be dispensed with it could not be a factor which confers jurisdiction on the Court. The other is that Clause (2) only confers-a special jurisdiction on the court to dispense with notice which confirms rather than negatives the position that in the absence of the exercise of that special jurisdiction to dispense with notice, the issue of notice is not a factor affecting jurisdiction". After considering the entire matter the Full Bench held that Clause 2 only confers a special jurisdiction on the court to dispense with notice, which confirms rather than negatives the position that in the absence of the exercise of that special jurisdiction to dispense with notice the issue of notice is not a factor affecting jurisdiction. 7. In Mithalal v. Kapoorchand (AIR 1959 Rajasthan 47) it was held that O.21 R.22 is not mandatory when they have been given notice under 0.21 R.66. When such a notice is given and they are already contesting the case, it will be needless formality and it need not be insisted upon. 7. In Mithalal v. Kapoorchand (AIR 1959 Rajasthan 47) it was held that O.21 R.22 is not mandatory when they have been given notice under 0.21 R.66. When such a notice is given and they are already contesting the case, it will be needless formality and it need not be insisted upon. The Court observed as follows: "Thus, in Chandra Nath v. Nabadwip Chandra, AIR 1931 Cal. 476, Rankin C.J., observed that it was quite unnecessary to push the abstract logic of the case of AIR 1914 PC 129, to a ridiculous extreme, and that it seemed to him to be merely piling unreason upon technicality to hold that it was open to the judgment-debtors to object to the jurisdiction of the' Court because they had not got a formal notice to do something, namely, to dispute the execution of the decree when in point of fact they were busy disputing about it in all the courts for the best part of the last two years. It was further stated that all that 0. 21/ R.22 required was that an opportunity should be given to the judgment-debtors against whom execution was taken out more than a year after the decree to show cause why execution should not proceed, and that there a notice under 0. 21, R.66 having been given, the parties were disputing about the execution of the decree, the failure to give notice under 0. 21, R.22 was not an illegality". Therefore, it is argued by the respondents that petitioner was a party to the execution petition and filed objection. His objections were considered and therefore, the contention that no notice was given under 0.21 R.22 will not make the order of delivery void. 8. Respondents also contended that 0.21 R.22 is not applicable here. The suit was for partition. Plaintiffs in the partition suit got delivery of the property. The decree in partition suit is not appealed against. Plot 1 is allotted to the first respondent. There is no dispute regarding the same. The legal representatives are claiming under one of the shares who got his share as per the partition decree. That sharer has nothing to contest. There is no further claim for the revision petitioner. The decree in partition suit is not appealed against. Plot 1 is allotted to the first respondent. There is no dispute regarding the same. The legal representatives are claiming under one of the shares who got his share as per the partition decree. That sharer has nothing to contest. There is no further claim for the revision petitioner. Based upon the decision in Inocencio Fernandes v. Francisco Mario De Jesus Lopes (AIR 1978 Goa, Daman„ And Diu 13) it was contended that no notice may be issued to the judgment debtor who has no interest in the property against which execution is ordered. In this case, share allotted to the respondent is not disputed by the predecessor of the revision petitioner as he has no interest in the property against which the execution is sought. Therefore, notice under 0.21 R.22 is not necessary. In partition cases when final decree is passed each co-owner becomes entitled to the property allotted to his share and loses his title and right to possession in the property allotted to the share of other co-owners. 'Therefore, when a co-owner in such a case, applies for delivery of possession of the property allotted to him but is in possession of other co-owner and he dies before possession is delivered notice under this rule to legal representatives is not necessary because alter final decree the predecessor had no right to its possession which could devolve upon his legal representatives and there could be no prejudice to them in the absence of notice. The respondents also refer to page 806 of Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure by A.I.R. Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure by V.R. Manohar and W.W. Chitaley. Therefore, it is argued that notice is not necessary. The revision petitioner had filed objection. All possible objections raised by her were considered and therefore, issuing such a notice is an empty formality. 9. From 0.21 R.22 sub-rule. 2, it is clear that Court can dispense with the issue of such notice for reasons to be recorded, if such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. All possible objections raised by her were considered and therefore, issuing such a notice is an empty formality. 9. From 0.21 R.22 sub-rule. 2, it is clear that Court can dispense with the issue of such notice for reasons to be recorded, if such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. A proviso is also added stating as follows: "Provided that no order for the execution of a decree shall be invalid owing to the omission of the Court to record its reasons unless the judgment debtor has sustained injury as a result of such omission". (Kerala Amendment) Similar proviso was incorporated by various other High Court amendments. (For eg. Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Allahabad, Karnataka etc.) When 0.21 R.22 is read as a whole, I am of the opinion that in view of the enabling provision of R.22(2) if a notice is not issued it will not affect the jurisdiction. The court has power to dispense with issue of notice under 0.21 R.22. When court has got such power, mere omission to record the reasons by the Court will not invalidate the execution proceedings as held by the Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court. The Kerala amendment make it clear that merely because court omitted to record the reasons for dispensing with notice under 0.21 R.22, the order in execution proceedings will not become invalid if no substantial injustice is caused. In this particular case, the legal representatives were made parties to execution petition. Apart from the fact that it is a partition suit, among other co-owners, the predecessor of the legal representatives had no claim regarding item No of the schedule property, which is allotted to the first respondent. Therefore, by claiming as legal representatives, they cannot contest the matter. Apart from the above, they were parties in the execution proceedings. 10. Various objections filed by them were considered by the Court and merely no notice under 0.21 R.22, the proceedings will not become invalid. The objections filed by the legal representatives were considered on merit by the Court. The present execution petition was filed on 16.2.1994. In the execution petition, additional judgment debtors 11 to 17 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first judgment debtor. The objections filed by the legal representatives were considered on merit by the Court. The present execution petition was filed on 16.2.1994. In the execution petition, additional judgment debtors 11 to 17 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first judgment debtor. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order is not invalid merely because Order 21 R.22 notice was not issued, especially in view of R.22(2) and in view of the fact that the allotment of plot 1 to the first respondent was not disputed by the predecessor of the revision petitioner. Under R.22(2) Court can dispense with service of notice for reasons recorded. In view of the proviso added by the Kerala amendment, merely because reasons were not recorded in advance proceedings will not become invalid for absence of notice if no substantial injustice is caused. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that S.97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 clearly states that any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, in so far as such amendment or provision is not consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. According to me, the Kerala Amendment is not inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended". Kerala amendment is not contrary or inconsistent with the existing provisions. Even before such an amendment several High Courts including Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court (1956 Travancore-Cochin 147) had taken such a view. In this case, there are sufficient reasons to dispense with notice under 0.21 R.22 (eventhough it was not recorded in advance ) as it will cause only unreasonable and unnecessary delay defeating ends of justice, Even without the amendment also under 0.21 R.22(2) Court has got power to dispense with service of notice for reasons to be recorded in writing. Where circumstances warrant, it is the duty of the Court to record reasons while dispensing with notice. Mere failure or omission on the part of the Court to record such reasons should not prejudice to the parties if no substantial injustice is caused to the other party. Non-recording of reasons in advance in dispensing with notice under 0.21R. Where circumstances warrant, it is the duty of the Court to record reasons while dispensing with notice. Mere failure or omission on the part of the Court to record such reasons should not prejudice to the parties if no substantial injustice is caused to the other party. Non-recording of reasons in advance in dispensing with notice under 0.21R. 22 on the facts of this case has not caused any substantial injustice to the revision petitioner as legal representatives including herself were parties to the execution petition and their objections were considered by the Court. During the pendency of the previous execution petition, first judgment debtor died. Since the revision petitioner was made a party to the execution petition, he had got all opportunity to place the objections. In fact, all possible objections were raised. Therefore on technical ground the delivery order cannot be rejected. 11. The other contention raised is that previous execution petition number was not mentioned. The date of dismissal of the previous execution petition was mentioned. There is no suppression. Since the date of dismissal of the previous execution petition was mentioned, there is no defect in the present execution petition. The first judgment debtor was not claiming any claim against the other judgment debtors. Dispute is only regarding item No. 1. They want only delivery of item No.1 from additional judgment debtors 11 to 17. Therefore, non-impleading of other persons who have no interest in the case will not affect the delivery order. 12. With regard to the claim of the Titus, relative of first judgment debtor, that he is a tenant of building No.1 of the schedule property, the lower court had considered the objections. The said Titus filed O.S. No. 904 of 1990 against the first decree holder and the said suit was dismissed. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Therefore, he need not be impleaded as a party. In any event revision petitioner cannot take up that issue. Since all the objections were considered correctly by the lower court, there is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.