JUDGMENT SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. Rule. Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today. 2. This petition has been preferred under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 08.07.2009, passed by the Executing Court in Special Execution Petition No.116 of 2006, whereby a warrant for attachment and sale of the property of the petitioners, under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) has been issued. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was serving in the Accounts Department of the respondent-Corporation since 1983 and, during the tenure of his services, he requested the respondent-Corporation for a housing loan, under the Individual Employee Housing (Flat) Scheme. A sum of Rs.1,27,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner No.1 for purchasing a flat, with interest @ 5.25% per annum. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner No.1 came to be terminated in the year 1998 as, according to the respondent-Corporation, he along with others, was involved in a theft that took place in the office premises where he was serving. After termination of his services, the petitioner No.1 could not repay the loan amount. The respondent-Corporation filed Special Civil Suit No.194 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,34,211=72 ps. with interest @ 15.25% per annum. The petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, though they had instructed their advocate to defend the suit, no written statement was filed and nor was the suit contested. Ultimately, .the suit of the respondent was decreed, exparte, on 24.06.2005. An application for setting aside the exparte decree dated 24.06.2005 was filed, which is pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Corporation started execution proceedings, being Special Execution Petition No.116 of 2006. An application for stay of the execution proceedings, filed by the petitioners, is still pending. The Executing Court issued notice under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code on 03.11.2006. The petitioners filed objections as per provisions of Rule 23 on 03.10.2007. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Corporation started execution proceedings, being Special Execution Petition No.116 of 2006. An application for stay of the execution proceedings, filed by the petitioners, is still pending. The Executing Court issued notice under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code on 03.11.2006. The petitioners filed objections as per provisions of Rule 23 on 03.10.2007. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08.07.2009 came to be passed, leading to the filing of the present petition. 4. Mr. Manish M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the Executing Court has passed the impugned order without considering or deciding the objections filed by the petitioners after issuance of notice, as provided under Rule 23 of Order 21. It is further submitted that the Executing Court, without considering the said objections, has straightaway passed the impugned order under the provisions of Rule 30 of Order 21 of the Code, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioners, who have been deprived of consideration/ adjudication of the objections filed by them. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, has submitted that in fact, the objections of the petitioners have been decided by the impugned order and as there is no stay against execution proceedings, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Executing Court. 6. On the Court putting a query to the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation as to whether the Court has passed an order after considering the objections of the petitioners dated 03.10.2007, the learned counsel for the respondent could not render any satisfactory answer, except that the impugned order amounts to consideration of the objections. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 8. There is no dispute regarding the fact that by order dated 03.11.2006, the Court issued Notice to the petitioners under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code. The procedure to be followed by the Court after issuance of Notice is clearly laid down in Rule 23 of Order 21. The said Rule reads as under : “23. There is no dispute regarding the fact that by order dated 03.11.2006, the Court issued Notice to the petitioners under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code. The procedure to be followed by the Court after issuance of Notice is clearly laid down in Rule 23 of Order 21. The said Rule reads as under : “23. Procedure after issue of notice :- (1) Where the person to whom notice is issued under rule 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 of the decree, the Court shall consider such objection and make such order as it thinks fit. (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is clear from a reading of sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 that in the event that a person offers any objection to the execution of the decree, the Court shall consider such objection and after doing so, make such order as it thinks fit. The word ‘shall’ has been used in the said rule, which means that consideration of the objection filed by a person to the execution of the decree, is mandatory. After duly considering the objection, the Court may pass an appropriate order as it deems fit. 10. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have filed an objection, as stipulated in sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Code which is dated 03.10.2007. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that no order has been passed upon the said objection. This is precisely the case of the petitioners. It is, therefore, clear that the Court has not considered the objection at all. The provisions of Rule 23 make the consideration of the objection necessary and after such consideration, the Court can make such order, as it thinks fit. The above-quoted provision leaves no manner of doubt that the order of the Court, as contemplated in sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Code, is an order to be passed after considering the objections. The above-quoted provision leaves no manner of doubt that the order of the Court, as contemplated in sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Code, is an order to be passed after considering the objections. By no stretch of imagination can it be construed to mean that the impugned order passed under the provisions of Rule 30 of Order 21 of the Code is an order passed after considering the objections, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 11. The procedure to be followed at different stages in execution proceedings has been meticulously laid down in the Code and, at every stage, there are inbuilt checks and balances which have been provided so that no party is prejudiced. Further, the provisions of Rule 26 of Order 21 relate to stay of execution and provide that the Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree. Admittedly, this stage has also not been followed, as the application for grant of stay filed by the petitioners is still pending. After issuance of notice under Order 21, Rule 22, the Executing Court has straightaway passed the order under the provisions of Rule 30, whereby a warrant for attachment and sale of the property of the petitioners has been issued. 12. In the considered view of this Court, by passing the impugned order, the Court has deprived the petitioners of the stage of consideration of his objection as well as decision on the application for stay of the execution proceedings. Undoubtedly, prejudice will be caused to the petitioners as two stages of consideration of objection under Order 21 Rule 23 and decision of the application for stay under Order 21 Rule 26 have been totally ignored by the Executing Court before passing the impugned order. Undoubtedly, prejudice will be caused to the petitioners as two stages of consideration of objection under Order 21 Rule 23 and decision of the application for stay under Order 21 Rule 26 have been totally ignored by the Executing Court before passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not disclose that the objection of the petitioners has been taken into consideration and, in any case, the said objection cannot be considered at the stage of passing of the order under Rule 30, when it has been clearly provided in the Code that the objection has to be considered and an order made thereupon, as per provisions of Rule 23(2) of Order 21. 13. For the abovestated reasons, as the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, it cannot be sustained. The passing of the impugned order, which is erroneous, has resulted in injustice to the petitioners. Accordingly, order dated 08.07.2009 is quashed and set aside. The Executing Court is directed to consider the objection filed by the petitioners dated 03.10.2007, as also the application for grant of stay, and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible and without avoidable delay. Thereafter, the Trial Court may pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties. 14. It is made clear that the Court has not considered the merits of the case and has only decided the petition on the limited grounds as discussed hereinabove. 15. The petition is partly-allowed, as above. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. (SBS) Petitions partly allowed.