Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 17.03.2010 in E.P.No.69 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2005 in L.A.C.No.48 of 2007, whereby the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, has issued warrant for execution of the decree and directed the Amin to file his report. The petitioner in R.C.C.No.2 of 2005 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent is the owner of the property, which is in occupation of the petitioner. Litigation ensued between the parties, which has led to passing of a compromise award by the Lok Adalat, Srikakulam vide award dated 24.10.2007 in R.C.C.No.2 of 2005 and Lok Adalat case No.482 of 2007. Under the award, both the parties inter alia agreed for continuance of lease in favour of the petitioner till February, 2010 and the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises without prior notice and further litigation and that he shall hand over the vacant possession on expiry of the lease period. As the petitioner failed to handover the possession to the respondent, the latter has filed E.P. on 17.03.2010. As noted above, the Court below has issued warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). At the hearing, Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that as admittedly the award passed by the Lok Adalat was more than two years old by the time the respondent has filed E.P., the Court below has committed a serious error in issuing warrant without notice to the petitioner, as envisaged in Order XXI Rule 22(1). Though this submission of the learned counsel sounds attractive at the first blush, on the facts of the present case, I do not feel persuaded to accept the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undertaken to deliver vacant possession of the property immediately on expiry of the agreed lease period, which subsisted till the end of February 2010. Instead of delivering the vacant possession, the petitioner embarked upon further litigation by setting up oral lease and filing a civil suit, which is pending in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. In this context, it is useful to extract Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. “22. Instead of delivering the vacant possession, the petitioner embarked upon further litigation by setting up oral lease and filing a civil suit, which is pending in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. In this context, it is useful to extract Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. “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 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 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 for 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.” While this Court refrains from giving a finding on the tenability or otherwise of the plea of the petitioner raised in the suit filed by the petitioner as noted above, it is of the opinion that the facts make it an eminently fit case for invocation of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 22(2) of CPC, because the petitioner made the respondent to await expiry of the extended lease period under the compromise award and filed a suit by setting up the plea of oral lease obviously with a view to thwart the respondent’s effort to recover possession of the property. Issuance of notice under clause (1) of Rule 22 would definitely cause unreasonable delay and defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the order under revision is not liable for interference and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.1728 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.