ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that the execution Court failed to apply Order 21 Rule 35 C.P.C, in letter and spirit while ordering notice in E.P. No. 106 of 2006. The petitioner secured a decree in O.S. No. 4232 of 2003 on 12.9.2005 wherein the petitioner was granted the relief of recovery of possession as well as rental arrears against the respondent judgment-debtor. The trial Court while granting the decree, granted three months' time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property which period expired by 11.12.2005. It is stated that the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent. It was under these circumstances, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 106 of 2006 invoking Order 21 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for delivery of possession in compliance with one of the decretal terms of the decree dated 12.9.2005. execution petition Was filed on 14.12.2005. The same is stated to have been posted before the Court for orders on 19.1.2006. The execution Court has ordered notice in the said execution petition and aggrieved against the said proceedings of the Court below, the petitioner has came forward with the revision. 2. Order 21, Rule 35 C.P.C., read along with Order 21 , Rule 22 C.P.C, makes it clear that in the event of application for execution being filed within two years from the date of the decree, the execution Court is fully empowered to secure possession to be delivered to the decree-holder from the person in possession who is bound by the decree and who refuses to vacate the property. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of Order 21 C.P.C., if such person who is bound by the decree does not afford free access, the Court can through its officers after giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public according to customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession. Thus, a conjoint reading of Order 21 and Rule 22 and Rule 35C.P.C., makes it clear that in the event of the decree-holder approaching the concerned execution Court within two years after the date of the decree, is entitled for recovery of possession by order of delivery without any notice being ordered to the judgment-debtor concerned. 3. Thus, a conjoint reading of Order 21 and Rule 22 and Rule 35C.P.C., makes it clear that in the event of the decree-holder approaching the concerned execution Court within two years after the date of the decree, is entitled for recovery of possession by order of delivery without any notice being ordered to the judgment-debtor concerned. 3. The said legal position has also been affirmed by this Court by His Lordship M. Srinivasan, as he then was, in the judgment reported, in Nachayee Ammal and Others v. Pichaimuthu Nachayee Ammal and Others v. Pichaimuthu Nachayee Ammal and Others v. Pichaimuthu (1992) 2 MLJ 498 wherein the learned, Judge has stated the legal position as under in paragraph 4: “…..If the execution petition is filed within two years after the date of the decree, there is no necessity for the executing Court to issue notice to the judgment-debtor……..” “6. Consequently, the order dated 7.1.1991 recording delivery is directly in accordance with law as the order granting execution without notice to the judgment-debtor was in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, that order cannot be set aside on the ground that the Circular issued by this Court had not been followed or complied with.” In the light of the above said legal position, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. 4. The execution Court is directed to pass appropriate orders directing delivery of possession to the petitioner without ordering notice to the respondent judgment-debtor applying Order 21, Rule 22 and Rule 35 C.P.C. Petition allowed.