JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Dr. O.V.D. Ladia, learned Counsel for Respondents. 2. There was a suit (TS. No. 13/1992) filed by one Smti. Kongka Lamare for declaration of right, title and interest and also recovery of possession. On her death, the present Respondents, being legal heirs, were substituted as Plaintiffs. One Helency Thubru was the dependent in the said title suit. An ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 07.10.1994 by the Court of Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant preferred an appeal being Title Civil Appeal No. 03/1994 and the learned Judge of District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, vide an order dated 21.12.1994, stayed the operation of the said judgment and decree dated 07.10.1994. In the meantime, Defendant Helency Thubru died on 02.06.2005 but her legal heir Smti. Rubyious Thubru @ Ruby Thubru, present Petitioner, was substituted only on 26.05.2006. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, vide order dated 10.09.2007. An application under Order 21, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed on 11.08.2009 by the decree holder/Plaintiffs (present Respondents) for execution of the decree. It was registered as Execution Case No. 01/ 2009. The learned Execution Court on the same day i.e. 11.08.2009, without issuing any notice to the judgment-debtor (present Petitioner), vide order dated 11.08.2009, directed the bailiff of the Court to execute the said judgment and decree dated 07.10.1994. The decree holder, present Respondents, then filed an application under Section 39 read with Order 21, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for transfer of the decree to be executed by the Judge, District Council Court at Shillong, as two of the immovable/landed properties, one at Nongthymmai and the other at Nongfim Hills with movable properties, are lying. The learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, by order dated 20.08.2009, accordingly transferred the decree for execution at Shillong by his superior Judge i.e. Judge, District Council Court, Shillong. 3. Mr. The learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, by order dated 20.08.2009, accordingly transferred the decree for execution at Shillong by his superior Judge i.e. Judge, District Council Court, Shillong. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, in Title Suit No. 13/1992, judgment and order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, in Title Civil Appeal No. 01/2006 and ex-parte orders dated 11.08.2009, 20.08.2009 and 30.09.2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, in Title Execution Case No. 01/2009 in respect of properties at Jowai, with compensatory costs, are liable to be set aside and quashed on the following grounds: (1) The Respondents/Plaintiffs inspite of their knowledge about the death of original Defendant Helency Thubru, did not take any steps for substitution of legal heirs. The substitution petition was filed only on 12.05.2006 and the same was allowed on 26.05.2006 without there being any petition for condonation of delay, which is illegal and unsustainable under the law. (2) In respect of Execution Case No. 01/2009, no notice and/or summons was issued to the Petitioner. (3) Not even a copy of the Execution Case was furnished to the present Petitioner. (4) The decree holder also did not furnish copy of the decree sought to be executed by the execution Court. 4. Countering the submissions of Mr. Ahmed, Dr. Ladia, learned Counsel representing the Respondents/Plaintiffs, submits that the Petitioner, at this stage, cannot reopen the question of validity of the order passed by the Court concerned substituting the legal heir(s) of Helency Thubru inasmuch as it was not challenged at the appropriate time and forum. In respect of issuance of notice/summons, he submits that as per proviso under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no such notice is required to be issued to the judgment-debtor when the proceeding in fact is continuing or in continuation of prior proceeding or when application for execution has been made within 2 years of the last order on an application under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, Dr. In the present case, Dr. Ladia, submits that the said decree was passed on 07.10.1994 and an appeal preferred against it before the appellate Court, was dismissed on 10.09.2007 and the execution application was filed on 11.08.2009 i.e. one month before the expiry of 2 years. He also submits that in fact the execution Court, on receipt of the execution application, issued notice upon the Petitioner for appearance, etc. That being the position, according to Dr. Ladia, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2009, 20.08.2009 and 30.09.2009 passed by the learned execution Court, are legally sustainable as the somewere passed in accordance with the provision under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As to how and why the provision under Order 21, Rule 22 is applicable, he relies on High Court amendments to the provision under Order 21, Rule 22 so effected by this Court in the line of Calcutta High Court by a notification dated 03.02.1933, which finds place in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended till date. The fact that this Court has adopted and followed the amendment effected by the Calcutta High Court, has been reflected in me order delivered by this Court on 08.01.1981 in Dosoi Sonari v. Ramesh Chandra Dutta and Anr., AIR 1981 GAU90. Even assuming that the execution order in question, was passed without issuing any notice upon the judgment-debtor, it would not vitiate the order of execution passed by the execution Court, as held by several High Court. In this regard, Dr. Ladia, refers to Nachayee Ammal and Ors. v. Pichaimuthu, AIR 1992 Mad 279 ; Inocencio Fernandez v. Francisco Mario De Jesus AIR 1978 Goa Daman and Diu 13 and Madappa v. Lingappa and Anr. AIR 1987 Karn 60. 5. At the time of hearing, I have gone through the records relating to Execution Case No. 01/2009. The execution petition was filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs on 11.08.2009 along with a certified copy of decree dated 07.10.1994 under Order 21, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is seen that on the same day i.e. 11.08.2009, the learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, passed the order directing the bailiff of the Court to execute the decree in favour of decree holder Smti. Kongka Lamare, with the help of police and further directing him to submit report on 27.062009. It is seen that on the same day i.e. 11.08.2009, the learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, passed the order directing the bailiff of the Court to execute the decree in favour of decree holder Smti. Kongka Lamare, with the help of police and further directing him to submit report on 27.062009. From the order sheets nowhere it has been reflected that any notice/summons was issued upon the judgment-debtor (present- Petitioner). The bailiff after visiting the suit land, as directed by the execution Court, submitted report on 10.09.2009 and the same was accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jowai, vide impugned order dated 30.09.2009 and thereafter, disposed of the said execution case. From the record, it is evident that no notice was issued upon the Petitioner on the execution application and the execution was carried out without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 6. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the execution of decree without giving any notice upon the judgment-debtor, can be sustained under the provision of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7 For deciding this question, it is felt appropriate to reproduce Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code, as under: 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 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 each notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of Justice. It is also felt necessary to quote hereunder the relevant portion of Notification dated 03.02.1933 issued by the Calcutta High Court which are being followed by this Court so far. Calcutta (Notification No. 3516 - G of 03.02.1933).- Add the following as Sub-rule (3) - (3) Omisson to issue a notice in a case where notice is required under Sub-rule (1), or to record reasons in a case where notice is dispensed with under Sub-rule (2), shad not affect the jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree. 8. The factual position has been narrated earlier. However, it is to be noticed that against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.1994, an appeal being T.C.A. No. 01/2006 was filed and the same was dismissed on 10.09.2007. Just after dismissal of the said appeal, the decree holders/present Respondents, could file the title execution case on 11.08.2009. Between 10.09.2007, i.e. date of dismissal of the appeal and 11.08.2009 i.e. date of filing of the execution case, the period of 2 years as prescribed in the proviso to Order 21, Rule 22, was yet to expire. It is established that the execution case was filed about one month prior to expiry of the stipulated period of 2 years. 9. It is established that the execution case was filed about one month prior to expiry of the stipulated period of 2 years. 9. The proviso to Rule 22 makes it clear that the period of 2 years should be calculated from the 'date of last order passed against the party against whom execution is applied for.' The last order, in this case, is obviously the dismissal order passed by the appellate Court on 10.09.2007. The executing Court is not required to calculate the period from the original date of decree i.e. 07.10.1994. Once it is established that the 'date of last order' was passed on 10.09,2007 and the period of 2 years as prescribed thereunder, is yet to expire, from the 'date of filing of the execution case', it is not necessary to press into service the provision under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 22 or for that matter, the amendment brought into force by the Calcutta High Court which is being followed by this Court. 10. The decision of this Court in the case Dosoi Sonari (supra) as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents relates to execution of proceeding where the application was filed beyond the period of 2 years from the date of decree and no notice to show cause was served on the decree holder under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that case, inspite of not receiving any notice, the judgment-debtor appeared and submitted before the jurisdiction of the execution Court and lodged an application before it regarding non-receipt of notice on execution proceedings. The material fact in the aforesaid case is quite different from the one narrated in the instant case. It is apparent that the decision, taken by this Court in the aforesaid case is not relevant to the present case. However, the principle laid down therein that non-service of a formal notice, as held therein, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to execute the decree can be applied to the present case. This Court, in the said case, has discussed the purpose of incorporating the provision under Order 21, Rule 22 for guidance in dealing with the execution case. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion from paragraph 6 of the said judgment, as under: 6... This Court, in the said case, has discussed the purpose of incorporating the provision under Order 21, Rule 22 for guidance in dealing with the execution case. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion from paragraph 6 of the said judgment, as under: 6... As alluded, the object of Order 21, Rule 22 is to prevent undue surprise if an execution is taken after lapse of period prescribed and to give opportunity to the judgment-debtor to show absence of the jurisdiction of the Court to execute the decree. If the judgment-debtor appears and contest in the proceeding, he should not be permitted to question the want of jurisdiction of the Court merely on the score that he was not favoured with a "formal notice". I arrive at the finale that it is not rule that non-service of formal notice invariably renders a proceeding void nor does non-service of the formal notice take away the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the "action". If a decree is executed beyond two years after the date of the decree and it can be established that the decree was void as it was time-barred or had been satisfied or could not be executed, the entire proceedings are liable to be declared void in due course. Non-service of formal notice per se does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court. 11. In the case of Fernandez (supra), the Goa, Daman and Diu High Court held that no question arises when application is made before the expiry of 1 year from the date of order of the appellate Court. The period of 1 year has now been extended to 2 years after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Similar view have been taken in Madappa's case (supra). In Animal's case (supra),the Madras High Court took the same view but it also held that for setting aside the judicial order, there should be an application known to law and the procedure prescribed by law should be followed. That apart, there must be an application before the Court to review the order passed in the execution proceeding. Admittedly, in the present case, no such review petition was filed. 12. That apart, there must be an application before the Court to review the order passed in the execution proceeding. Admittedly, in the present case, no such review petition was filed. 12. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, I hold that under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no notice is required to be served upon the Petitioner/judgment-debtor/Defendant for execution of the decree dated 07.10.1994 in regard to which an appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on 10.09.2007. And for this reason, I hold that there is no irregularity and/or illegality in passing the impugned orders dated 11.08.2009, 20.08.2009 and 30.09.2009 by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, in Title Execution Case No. 01/2009. 13. In view of above findings, I find no merit in the instant revision petition and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. 14. Parties to bear their own costs. 15. Send down the LC Rs to the Court below forthwith. Petition dismissed