JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Civil judge (Junior Division), Bhilwara (West) dated 30.10.1995 passed in Execution Case No. 24 of 1993 by which he dismissed the three applications filed by the petitioner resisting execution of the ejectment decree of the non-petitioner decree-holder. 2. The necessary facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the non-petitioner decree-holder obtained a decree of eviction against Shri Kalyan Mal Lohiya, the father of the petitioner and it became final when Shri Kalyan Mal Lohiya informed his counsel that he had settled the matter with the decree-holder out of the Court and his learned counsel submitted the above fact before this Court. Consequently, on 22.4.1988, this Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Shri Kalyan Mal Lohiya. In other words, the eviction decree obtained by the decree-holder against Shri Kalyan Mal Lohiya became final. It appears that the decree-holder laid the execution application before the learned Civil Judge for execution after five years from the date of passing of the decree. The execution was resisted by the petitioner and he filed three applications on 18.1.1995, 4.3.1995 and 31.3.1995. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge dismissed all the above applications. 3. Before the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner submitted that after an amicable settlement between Kalyanmal Lohiya and the decree holder, the second appeal was dismissed but the decree- holder admitted him as his new tenant in the same premises,, though the rent which was previously Rs. 65/- per month was raised to Rs. 250/- p.m. In the application, the petitioner has stated that the tenancy started some-time between the year 1977 and 1981. It was also contended before the learned Civil Judge that before proceeding further with the execution of the above decree, it was obligatory for the learned Civil Judge to have issued show cause notice to him inasmuch as he is also the legal representative of Kalyanmal Lohiya who died on 2.3.1994, in terms of 0. 21, R. 22, C.P.C., no such notice was issued to him and with out such a notice, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the above execution. He also pleaded his new tenancy with the decree-holder and also submitted that he made several payments to the decree-holder. 4. 21, R. 22, C.P.C., no such notice was issued to him and with out such a notice, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the above execution. He also pleaded his new tenancy with the decree-holder and also submitted that he made several payments to the decree-holder. 4. The learned Civil Judge held that since a notice under O. 21, K. 66 C.P.C. was admittedly received by the petitioner, he had full notice of the impending execution and in fact, by moving the above applications, he resisted the execution on all possible grounds. According to him, the petitioner was not at all prejudiced for not issuing a notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. He also disbelieved the version of the petitioner that he became a new tenant of the landlord in the same premises after the death of his father Shri Kalyanmal Lohiya. 5. I have heard M/s H.C. Jain and S.C. Maloo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner decree-holder. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently contended that the notice under O.21 R. 22 C.P.C. was mandatory. The execution was laid after more than five years from the date of the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder and secondly, the petitioner was also one of the legal representative of deceased Kalyanmal Lohiya. In Raghunath Das v. Sunder Das Khetri, AIR 1914 PC 129 , it has been held that a notice under s. 248 C.P.C. (corresponding to O. 21, R. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it exists today) is necessary in order that the Court should obtain jurisdiction to sell property by way of execution as against the legal representative of a deceased judgment-debtor. Hence, the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the above application without first complying with the mandatory notice envisaged by O. 21 R. 22 C.P.C. 7. Hence, the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the above application without first complying with the mandatory notice envisaged by O. 21 R. 22 C.P.C. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that if the above notice would have been issued to him, the petitioner would have been able to show cause, as of right, that the original judgment debtor deceased Kalyan Mal Lohiya surrendered his tenancy during the pendency of the second appeal No. 83 of 1977 as he had amicably settled the dispute with the decree-holder; that the court dismissed the second appeal on 22.4.1988 and thereafter, the decree holder-non-petitioner admitted him as his new tenant in the same premises at the enhanced rate of rent of Rs. 250/- p.m. with effect from 1.4.1988; and that he paid rent through various cheques, Bank drafts and also in cash. The learned Civil Judge declined to entertain his objections on merits and dismissed the applications without appreciating the position of law or judging the applications on merits. 8. The learned counsel has also contended that recently, the Apex Court in Bhanwarlal v. Satyanarain, AIR 1995 SC 358 laid down that a reading of O.21, R. 97 C.P.C. clearly envisages that any person even including the judgment-debtor irrespective of whether he claims derivative title from the judgment-debtor or sets up his own right, title or interest, dehors the judgment-debtor and he resists the execution of a decree, then the Court in addition to the powers under R. 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of immovable property was legal or not. It was further held that the decree-holder gets right under R. 97 to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction (sic) and an enquiry thereon could be done. Hence, the learned Civil Judge committed a grave error in not going into the merits of the case and declined to consider the grounds of resistance raised by the petitioner to the above execution. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel that a notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. must go to each and every legal representative of deceased Kalyanmal Lohiya but the decree-holder only desired to execute his decree against the petitioner and thereby, the Court declined to issue notice to Omer judgment-debtors. 10. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel that a notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. must go to each and every legal representative of deceased Kalyanmal Lohiya but the decree-holder only desired to execute his decree against the petitioner and thereby, the Court declined to issue notice to Omer judgment-debtors. 10. The learned counsel for the decree-holder non-petitioner has supported the impugned order. He has not disputed the fact that notice under O.21, R. 22 C.P.C. ought to have been issued to the petitioner who is un-disputable legal representative of deceased judgment-debtor Kalyanmal Lohiya. The rigour of the view pre-pounded by the Privy Council in Raghunath Dass's case (supra) has been softended by the trend in the recent judgments of various High Courts. The only requirement of O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. is that the judgment-debtor or his legal representative must be made aware of the execution, if in terms of O. 21, R. 22, a notice is required to be issued. In the instant case, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice issued under O. 21, R. 66 C.P.C. and the petitioner has also admitted this fact. The petitioner was, therefore, apprised of the factum of impending execution of the ejectment decree. The petitioner aggressively resisted the above execution by filing three different applications before the learned Civil Judge though he omitted to specify the relevant provisions of law under which each of the applications was moved. The learned Civil Judge, notwithstanding this lapse considered and correctly held that since the petitioner was made aware of the impending execution proceedings in pursuance of the eviction decree obtained by the decree-holder against Kalyanmal Lohiya, the father of the present petitioner, the requirement of notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. was satisfied. He relied on Mithalal v. Kapoorchand, 1959 RLW 682 . Regarding other objections raised by the petitioner, he invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the learned Civil Judge considered the objections raised by the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner's claim of having a new tenancy in his favour was absolutely baseless and pre-posterous. Cogent reasons have been given. He also submitted that the since the petitioner is only in occupation of suit-premises, the notice to other legal representatives was not necessary. Cogent reasons have been given. He also submitted that the since the petitioner is only in occupation of suit-premises, the notice to other legal representatives was not necessary. Moreover, this fact must be agitated by the concerned legal representatives and it is a question of fact regarding which it is difficult to record a finding here. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner is the son of judgment-debtor Kalyanmal Lohiya, who died on 2.3.1994. First, I may consider the serious objection of the petitioner that for want of a notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C., the executing Court was devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the decree-holder. The whole purpose of notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. is that the person or the legal representative against whom the execution is laid must have due information about the execution and an opportunity is provided to him as to why the execution be not proceeded against him. If it is accepted and it is the law settled now then the purpose of issuing notice under O.21, R. 22 C.P.C. is only to apprise the concerned judgment-debtor or his legal representative of the application. This view was held in Mithalal's case (supra). I may quote relevant observations: "In cases falling within the scope of R. 22 O. 21, a notice must broadly speaking be given to the Judgment debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him. It is highly desirable that such a notice should be given to avoid unnecessary complications and delay in execution proceedings, the object of the rule requiring the giving of notice is to give the judgment-debtor an opportunity to show cause against execution where, therefore, the judgment debtor has been served with a notice under R. 66 of O. 21 and has thus been made aware of the application pending against him, or where he otherwise appears and contests the application on the merits, it would be going too far to hold that the proceedings are illegal, unless the judgment debtor is able to show that prejudice has been caused to him by the omission to give notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C." 12. In the instant case, the petitioner has admitted that he received a notice under O. 22, R. 3 C.P.C. It is only after the receipt of such a notice that the petitioner appeared and contested the execution before the learned Civil Judge. It is, therefore, clear that-no prejudice at all was caused to the petitioner for want of an opportunity or a notice under O. 21, R. 22 C.P.C. The intending object of the notice under 0.21 R. 22 C.P.C. is achieved since the petitioner appeared and contested the execution before the learned Civil Judge. I, therefore, find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the executing Court committed a jurisdictional error in not complying with the mandatory provision of O. 21 R. 22 C.P.C. 13. Regarding his second contention that the learned Magistrate did not consider the objections raised by him has also got no force inasmuch as the learned Civil Judge has considered the objection. Accordingly, he gave various reasons for not believing the version of the petition that a new tenancy was created between him and the non-petitioner decree-holder between the year 1977 and 1981. The learned Civil Judge pointedly stated that the petitioner was not specific even about the date the new tenancy came into existence. He also found it questionable that during the pendency of a second appeal, no such tenancy between the parties could commence. The second appeal was dismissed on 22.4.1988. The learned trial Court also observed that the petitioner could not lead any evidence regarding payment of rent to the non-petitioner in respect of the suit-premises. 14. I, therefore, find that the learned Civil Judge did not decline to consider the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner. He considered them and recorded his findings. 15. Regarding the objections that other legal representatives of judgment-debtor Kalyanmal Lohiya were not informed, I am not inclined to go into this question inasmuch as it is a question of fact. 16. For the aforesaid reason, I find no substance in this-revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed. *******