JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.9.1981 passed by the Executing Court directing the sale of property to satisfy the money decree for an amount of Rs. 6120/- passed by the Learned Sub Judge on 18.11.1978 against the petitioner-judgment debtor. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for resolving the controversy may first be noticed. A money decree for an amount of Rs. 6120/- was passed by the learned Sub-Judge on 18.11.1978 against the petitioner judgment debtor and in favour of respondent decree-holder. An application was moved by the respondent decree-holder being application No. 40 in the executing Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.8.1981 and the executing court passed an order which reads as under :- "Present None. None for D.H. As such execution application is dismissed for the absence of the D.H. But the previous proceedings are kept intact. Execution application be consigned to the record room for the time being." 3. On 29.8.1981, the decree holder filed another application being execution application No. 58 without seeking restoration of the execution application No. 40 which was dismissed on 24.8.1981. The executing Court registered the application and directed the listing of the case on 5.9.1981 for consideration alongwith the previous file i.e. execution Application No. 40. Thereafter, the case was listed on 5.9.1981 and the hearing was deferred to 12.9.1981. On the adjourned date, the impugned order was passed by recording the following order : "Present : D.H. with counsel. J.D. not present despite the fact that execution has been called many times. Let the sale be issued as under : Notice in Court compound - 19.9.1981 Munadi for sale at spot - 29.9.1981 Sale at spot - 14.10.1981 Report be made on - 24.10.1981 4. The plea now raised by the judgment-debtor is that on the filing of execution Application No. 58 fresh execution proceedings had started against the petitioner-judgment debtor which was beyond a period of two years from the date of the decree and notice regarding the institution of fresh execution application was required to be served on the petitioner-judgment debtor, which was not done. It has been argued that the petitioner-judgment debtor has already paid certain decretal amount to the respondent-decree holder and had an opportunity been given to him by issuing notice, he could have shown that the decree stood satisfied partially and there was no necessity to issue direction for sale of his property. The pleas taken by the judgment-debtor are bassed on the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) which reads as under : "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 Section 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 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 for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him." 5. A perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 21 of the Code would show that if an application for execution is made more than two years after the date of the decree, the Court executing the decree is under a legal obligation to issue notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show why decree be not executed against him. In the present case, the decree was passed on 18.11.1978 and the application was filed on 29.8.1981 i.e. after more than two years. In the present case, the decree was passed on 18.11.1978 and the application was filed on 29.8.1981 i.e. after more than two years. Therefore, it was mandatory for the Court to issue notice to the petitioner-judgment debtor before passing the impugned order on 12.9.1981. The effect of omission to issue a show cause notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 21 of the Code is that the sale in execution is absolutely void and without jurisdiction. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satyanarain Bajoria v. Ramnarain Tibrewal, S.C.C. 414. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while referring to the provision of Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code observed as under : "... Without proof of service of notice in these proceedings, the lower appellate court could not have gone merely by order sheets of the execution file. No process-server was examined to prove service of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code. It will be noticed that the decree was passed as far back as 1964. The present application was filed in 1968 more than 2 years after dismissal of earlier execution application, and, therefore, for farther proceedings in pursuance of a fresh execution application, the court was duty bound to issue notice and serve notice of the execution application on the judgment-debator as provided for in Order Rule 21 Rule 22 of the Code which contemplates inter alia that if an application for execution is made more than two years after the date of the decree, 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. The last order made in the earlier execution application was on November 29, 1965 and the second execution application was filed more than two years thereafter i.e. in 1968. Therefore, issuing of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 was mandatory. The idea of issuing such a notice is to ascertain whether the averments as to the amount being claimed in the execution application are true or incorrect. Besides, even if the amount was due, the judgment-debator could have paid it and he was deprived of this opportunity to clear off dues, if any, under the decree. The idea of issuing such a notice is to ascertain whether the averments as to the amount being claimed in the execution application are true or incorrect. Besides, even if the amount was due, the judgment-debator could have paid it and he was deprived of this opportunity to clear off dues, if any, under the decree. It is only after the service of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code and failure of the judgment-debtor to pay the decretal amount, as claimed, that the decree holder takes recourse to proceedings under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code." 6. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarain Bajorias case (supra) interpreting sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 21 of the Code, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of the executing Court dated 12.9.1981 directing sale of the property of the petitioner-judgment debtor is without jurisdiction an void and the same is set aside. As a consequence of this declaration that the order dated 12.9.1981 is void and without jurisdiction all consequential proceedings which resulted into the sale of the property on 14.10.1981 is also declared illegal and void. 7. A perusal of the record shows that despite the order of this court staying the sale of land of the petitioner-judgment debtor, the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) held auction on 14.10.1981. After the auction, this Court issued another order on 25.11.1981 staying the confirmation of the sale. Therefore, it is clear that the auction field on 14.10.1981 has not been confirmed and because of the stay passed by this Court, no sale has been effected. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned executing Court dated 12.9.1981 is set aside and is declared void and without jurisdiction. The subsequent proceedings regarding auction or any other proceedings are also declared illegal. The executing Court may now proceed with the application in accordance with law. As the executing proceedings have remained stayed, I deem it appropriate to direct the executing Court to proceed with the application of the respondent- decree holder forthwith and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition allowed.