Order XXI Rule 22 CPC Notice Not Mandatory for Execution Filed Within Two Years: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Execution of Eviction Order Without Stay

Case Name: Aman Arora v. Harpal Singh Banwait & Another

Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026

Citation: CR-5530-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging execution proceedings arising from an eviction order under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court held that where an execution petition is instituted within two years of the decree or order, issuance of notice to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC is not mandatory. It further reiterated that mere pendency of a statutory appeal does not operate as a stay of execution, and unless the appellate forum grants a specific stay order, the decree-holder remains entitled to execute the decree. The Court also held that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or permit a tenant to revive statutory protection by offering to deposit provisional rent after an ejectment order has already been passed.

Summary: The respondents-landlords obtained an eviction order after the petitioner failed to tender the provisionally assessed rent within the time granted by the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Rent Controller passed the ejectment order in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation. The tenant preferred a statutory appeal, which remained pending, while the landlords simultaneously initiated execution proceedings. Since no stay had been granted by the Appellate Authority, the Executing Court dispensed with notice to the judgment-debtor and issued warrants of possession. The tenant challenged these execution orders before the High Court, contending that execution ought to await the outcome of the appeal, that notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC was mandatory, and that he should now be permitted to deposit the provisionally assessed rent.

Rejecting each contention, the High Court held that the legal consequences flowing from failure to deposit provisionally assessed rent are well settled. Once the tenant defaults despite being granted an opportunity to tender the assessed amount, the Rent Controller has no discretion but to order eviction. The Court observed that the tenant admittedly failed to deposit the assessed amount on the date fixed and, therefore, the ejectment order had been validly passed in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. The Court further reiterated the settled principle that filing an appeal does not, by itself, suspend the enforceability of a decree. In the absence of any order staying execution, the Executing Court was legally bound to enforce the eviction order.

The High Court also clarified the scope of Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, holding that notice to the judgment-debtor becomes mandatory only where execution is sought after the period prescribed under the Rule. Since the execution petition had been instituted within two years of the ejectment order, the Executing Court committed no jurisdictional error in dispensing with such notice before issuing warrants of possession. Reaffirming the settled principle that an Executing Court cannot travel behind the decree, the Court held that the legality or correctness of the eviction order falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the appellate forum and cannot be examined in execution proceedings. It further rejected the tenant’s plea to deposit the provisional rent after the eviction order had already been passed, holding that permitting such belated compliance would defeat the mandatory consequences envisaged under the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan. Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the execution proceedings, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upheld the Executing Court’s decision to dispense with notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and issue warrants of possession, holding that the execution proceedings were legally maintainable in the absence of any stay order from the Appellate Authority and that the tenant could not revive statutory protection by belatedly offering to deposit the provisional rent.