Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shashikant Arvindkumar Rajput and others, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Chikhli in Special Execution No. 1 of 2024. The impugned order attached several parcels of land (Block Nos. 508/3, 508/9, 508/10, 508/13, 508/14, 508/21, 508/22, 508/23, 508/27, 508/28, 508/34, and 508/35 situated at Mouje Alipor, Taluka Chikhli, District Navsari) under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of a decretal amount of Rs. 58,81,676/-. The petitioners claimed that they were bona fide purchasers of some of these plots prior to the decree. Petitioner No. 1 purchased plot No. 21 from Shaileshkumar Naginbhai Patel by registered sale deed dated 11.01.2022; Petitioner No. 2 purchased plot No. 22 from the same vendor by registered sale deed dated 02.11.2021; and Petitioner No. 3 purchased plot No. 13 from Kamehwar Jawahar Singh by registered sale deed dated 16.05.2022, who had earlier purchased it from Shaileshkumar Naginbhai Patel. The petitioners contended that they were not parties to the suit and were not given any notice before the attachment order was passed. The executing court had attached the properties without issuing notice to the petitioners, who were in possession. The High Court, after hearing learned advocate Mr. Daxesh Barot for the petitioners, found that the attachment order was passed without following the mandatory procedure under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC, which requires notice to persons in possession of the property. The court held that the order was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the attachment order dated 29.11.2025, and remanded the matter back to the executing court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The court directed the executing court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Attachment of Property - Order 21 Rule 54 CPC - Notice to Third Parties - The executing court attached properties belonging to third-party purchasers without issuing notice to them under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC. The petitioners, who had purchased the plots prior to the decree, were not given an opportunity to object. The High Court held that attachment without notice to persons in possession is illegal and set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners. (Paras 1-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an order passed by the executing court that was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. The court found that the executing court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC, warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the attachment of properties purchased by third parties prior to the decree is valid without notice to them under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 29.11.2025 passed below application Exh. 16 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Chikhli in Special Execution No. 1 of 2024, and remanded the matter back to the executing court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Attachment before judgment
- Order 21 Rule 54 CPC
- Notice to third parties
- Bona fide purchaser
- Writ of certiorari under Article 227
